The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Soft and hard tissue response to photocrosslinked poly(propylene fumarate) scaffolds in a rabbit model
Abstract
The treatment of large cranial defects may be greatly improved by the development of precisely formed bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Such scaffolds could be constructed by using UV laser stereolithography to photocrosslink a linear, biodegradable polymer into a three‐dimensional implant. We have previously presented a method to photocrosslink the biodegradable polyester, poly(propylene fumarate) (PPF). To ensure the safety and effectiveness of this technique, the soft and hard tissue response to photocrosslinked PPF scaffolds of different pore morphologies was investigated. Four classes of photocrosslinked PPF scaffolds, constructed with differing porosities (57–75%) and pore sizes (300–500 or 600–800 μm), were implanted both subcutaneously and in 6.3‐mm‐diameter cranial defects in a rabbit model. The rabbits were sacrificed at 2 and 8 weeks, and the implants were analyzed by light microscopy, histological scoring analysis, and histomorphometric analysis. Results showed the PPF scaffolds elicit a mild tissue response in both soft and hard tissues. Inflammatory cells, vascularization, and connective tissue were observed at 2 weeks; a decrease in inflammatory cell density and a more organized connective tissue were observed at 8 weeks. Scaffold porosity and scaffold pore size were not found to significantly affect the observed tissue response. Evidence of scaffold surface degradation was noted both by histology and histomorphometric analysis. Bone ingrowth in PPF scaffolds implanted into cranial defects was <3% of the defect area. The results indicate that photocrosslinked PPF scaffolds are biocompatible in both soft and hard tissues and thus may be an attractive platform for bone tissue engineering. © 2001 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res 59: 547–556, 2002
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Patel, Z. S., Young, S., Tabata, Y., Jansen, J. A., Wong, M. E. K., & Mikos, A. G. (2008) · Bone · doi:10.1016/j.bone.2008.06.019 · Cited by 580
Self-citationVascularized Bone Tissue Engineering: Approaches for Potential Improvement
Nguyen, L. H., Annabi, N., Nikkhah, M., Bae, H., Binan, L., Park, S., Kang, Y., Yang, Y., & Khademhosseini, A. (2012) · Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews · doi:10.1089/ten.teb.2012.0012 · Cited by 313
Evaluating 3D‐Printed Biomaterials as Scaffolds for Vascularized Bone Tissue Engineering
Wang, M. O., Vorwald, C. E., Dreher, M. L., Mott, E. J., Cheng, M., Cinar, A., Mehdizadeh, H., Somo, S., Dean, D., Brey, E. M., et al. (2015) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.201403943 · Cited by 301
Self-citationLee, K.-W., Wang, S., Fox, B. C., Ritman, E. L., Yaszemski, M. J., & Lu, L. (2007) · Biomacromolecules · doi:10.1021/bm060834v · Cited by 292
Functionalized synthetic biodegradable polymer scaffolds for tissue engineering.
Liu, X., Holzwarth, J. M., & Ma, P. X. (2012) · Macromolecular Bioscience · doi:10.1002/mabi.201100466 · Cited by 290
Metadata
- Authors
- Fisher, J. P., Vehof, J. W. M., Dean, D., van der Waerden, J. P. C. M., Holland, T. A., Mikos, A. G., & Jansen, J. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Biomedical Materials Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-12-05
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 547-556
- ISSN
- 0021-9304 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-4636
- OpenAlex
- W2105322733
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Soft and hard tissue response to photocrosslinked poly(propylene fumarate) scaffolds in a rabbit model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jbm.1268
- The paper
- Fisher, J. P., Vehof, J. W. M., Dean, D., van der Waerden, J. P. C. M., Holland, T. A., Mikos, A. G., & Jansen, J. A. (2002). Soft and hard tissue response to photocrosslinked poly(propylene fumarate) scaffolds in a rabbit model. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.1268
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.