The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
In vivo biocompatibility of bacterial cellulose
Abstract
The biocompatibility of a scaffold for tissue engineered constructs is essential for the outcome. Bacterial cellulose (BC) consists of completely pure cellulose nanofibrils synthesized by Acetobacter xylinum. BC has high mechanical strength and can be shaped into three‐dimensional structures. Cellulose‐based materials induce negligible foreign body and inflammatory responses and are considered as biocompatible. The in vivo biocompatibility of BC has never been evaluated systematically. Thus, in the development of tissue engineered constructs with a BC scaffold, it is necessary to evaluate the in vivo biocompatibility. BC was implanted subcutaneously in rats for 1, 4, and 12 weeks. The implants were evaluated in aspects of chronic inflammation, foreign body responses, cell ingrowth, and angiogenesis, using histology, immunohistochemistry, and electron microscopy. There were no macroscopic signs of inflammation around the implants. There were no microscopic signs of inflammation either (i.e., a high number of small cells around the implants or the blood vessels). No fibrotic capsule or giant cells were present. Fibroblasts infiltrated BC, which was well integrated into the host tissue, and did not elicit any chronic inflammatory reactions. The biocompatibility of BC is good and the material has potential to be used as a scaffold in tissue engineering. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res, 2006
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
Cites
Biomaterial–microvasculature interactions
Sieminski, A. L., & Gooch, K. J. (2000) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/s0142-9612(00)00149-6 · Cited by 155
Cited by
Klemm, D., Cranston, E. D., Fischer, D., Gama, M., Kedzior, S. A., Kralisch, D., Kramer, F., Kondo, T., Lindström, T., Nietzsche, S., et al. (2018) · Materials Today · doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2018.02.001 · Cited by 936
Polymeric materials for bone and cartilage repair
Puppi, D., Chiellini, F., Piras, A. M., & Chiellini, E. (2010) · Progress in Polymer Science · doi:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.01.006 · Cited by 913
Bacterial cellulose in biomedical applications: A review
Picheth, G. F., Pirich, C. L., Sierakowski, M. R., Woehl, M. A., Sakakibara, C. N., de Souza, C. F., Martin, A. A., da Silva, R., & de Freitas, R. A. (2017) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.05.171 · Cited by 624
Chitosan and Cellulose-Based Hydrogels for Wound Management
Alven, S., & Aderibigbe, B. A. (2020) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms21249656 · Cited by 382
Production and Status of Bacterial Cellulose in Biomedical Engineering
Moniri, M., Boroumand Moghaddam, A., Azizi, S., Abdul Rahim, R., Bin Ariff, A., Zuhainis Saad, W., Navaderi, M., & Mohamad, R. (2017) · Nanomaterials · doi:10.3390/nano7090257 · Cited by 319
Metadata
- Authors
- Helenius, G., Bäckdahl, H., Bodin, A., Nannmark, U., Gatenholm, P., & Risberg, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-11-08
- Volume
- 76A
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 431-438
- ISSN
- 1549-3296 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-4965
- OpenAlex
- W2037604316
- Cited by
- 694
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.94
- 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: In vivo biocompatibility of bacterial cellulose. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jbm.a.30570
- The paper
- Helenius, G., Bäckdahl, H., Bodin, A., Nannmark, U., Gatenholm, P., & Risberg, B. (2006). In vivo biocompatibility of bacterial cellulose. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.30570
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.