The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An examination of the biologic response to injectable, glutaraldehyde cross‐linked collagen implants
Abstract
The biologic response to injectable, glutaraldehyde cross‐linked, fibrillar collagen implants in the rat subcutaneous model was shown to be a function of the concentration of glutaraldehyde used for cross‐linking. The collagen was prepared from bovine hide by pepsin solubilization and reconstituted as a fibrillar suspension of 35 mg collagen/mL. Fibrillar collagen implants cross‐linked with glutaraldehyde concentrations equal to or less than 0.01% exhibited a response characterized by fibroblast invasion, neovascularization and little, if any, evidence of inflammation. Implants cross‐linked with 0.1 and 1.0% glutaraldehyde elicited a foreign body/giant cell reaction and varying degrees of implant erosion. The interaction of human skin fibroblasts with 0.01% glutaraldehyde cross‐linked collagen in vitro was found to be dependent on the culture conditions utilized to evaluate the interaction. When the ratio of cell culture media to collagen was 20:1, cell invasion of the cross‐linked preparations was observed, whereas, when this ratio was reduced to 1:1, such interactions could not be detected. Noncross‐linked preparations were colonized by cells regardless of the experimental conditions used. Studies of implants in both the rat and guinea pig subcutaneous models indicated that glutaraldehyde cross‐linking concentrations as low as 0.0075% provided enhanced wet weight recovery (wet weight persistence) and resistence to biologic degradation (collagen persistence) as compared to noncross‐linked fibrillar collagen preparations. These cross‐linked implants also exhibited a greater degree of fibroblast infiltration and vascularization. Between 30 and 60 days, some degree of calcification developed in both collagen formulations implanted in rats and guinea pigs; however, the reaction occurred with greater frequency and intensity in cross‐linked preparations in guinea pigs. Calcification in the guinea pig was followed by the appearance of focal areas of ossification.
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
Collagen-based biomaterials for wound healing
Chattopadhyay, S., & Raines, R. T. (2014) · Biopolymers · doi:10.1002/bip.22486 · Cited by 1,041
Extracellular matrix-based biomaterial scaffolds and the host response
Aamodt, J. M., & Grainger, D. W. (2016) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.02.003 · Cited by 509
Delgado, L. M., Bayon, Y., Pandit, A., & Zeugolis, D. I. (2015) · Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews · doi:10.1089/ten.teb.2014.0290 · Cited by 272
Metadata
- Authors
- McPherson, J. M., Sawamura, S., & Armstrong, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Biomedical Materials Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1986-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 93-107
- ISSN
- 0021-9304 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-4636
- OpenAlex
- W2020509336
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.20
- 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: An examination of the biologic response to injectable, glutaraldehyde cross‐linked collagen implants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jbm.820200109
- The paper
- McPherson, J. M., Sawamura, S., & Armstrong, R. (1986). An examination of the biologic response to injectable, glutaraldehyde cross‐linked collagen implants. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820200109
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.