ArticleScientific reports2026
Preparation and characterization of a natural composite scaffold composed of chitosan, hydroxyapatite, and graphene oxide for bone repair.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Recent Advances and Applications of Chitin and Chitosan Hydrogel Scaffolds in Tissue Engineering.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The preparation of biocompatible scaffolds from natural substances for tissue engineering offers a beneficial alternative to synthetic materials for tissue repair. In this study, we prepared and characterized a composite scaffold composed of chitosan (CS), nano-hydroxyapatite (n-Hap), and graphene oxide (GO) for bone repair, and investigated its optimal composition. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and X-ray diffraction (XRD) test were employed to analyze the individual components and characterize the structure, morphology, and properties of the composite scaffold. The results confirmed the successful integration of the three components, with optimal performance achieved when GO was added at a concentration of 1 wt%. GO adhered to the surface of the CS network, promoting n-Hap adsorption. As the GO content increased, the surface adsorption capacity correspondingly increased, and the scaffold exhibited superior cell growth properties and significantly enhanced compressive strength. This enables load transfer through the GO framework, inducing a nonlinear stress increase from 66.6 MPa to 243.4 MPa. At 60% deformation, the optimal compressive strength reached 53.4 MPa.Meanwhile, the degradation rate decreased linearly with increasing GO content (from 13.1% to 6.1% over 21 days), demonstrating the effectiveness of this barrier effect. This scaffold, particularly the 1.0 wt% GO formulation, demonstrated sound choice for clinical translation as a load-bearing bone defect repair material due to its mechanical strength matching that of cortical bone, a degradation rate compatible with the bone regeneration cycle, and excellent cellular compatibility. The CS/n-HAP/GO composite scaffold developed in this study achieved good performance in mechanical, degradation, and biological properties compared with previously reported similar materials, and has realized synergistic optimization of all three aspects. This formulation of three biocompatible materials provides a promising basis for fundamental bio-scaffold research and potential applications in bone repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.