Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 599

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of polycaprolactone scaffold degradation for 6 months in vitro and in vivo

Lam, Christopher X. F., Hutmacher, Dietmar W., Schantz, Jan‐Thorsten, Woodruff, Maria Ann, Teoh, Swee Hin·2009·Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A

Abstract

The use of polycaprolactone (PCL) as a biomaterial, especially in the fields of drug delivery and tissue engineering, has enjoyed significant growth. Understanding how such a device or scaffold eventually degrades in vivo is paramount as the defect site regenerates and remodels. Degradation studies of three‐dimensional PCL and PCL‐based composite scaffolds were conducted invitro (in phosphate buffered saline) and in vivo (rabbit model). Results up to 6 months are reported. All samples recorded virtually no molecular weight changes after 6 months, with a maximum mass loss of only about 7% from the PCL‐composite scaffolds degraded in vivo, and a minimum of 1% from PCL scaffolds. Overall, crystallinity increased slightly because of the effects of polymer recrystallization. This was also a contributory factor for the observed stiffness increment in some of the samples, while only the PCL‐composite scaffold registered a decrease. Histological examination of the in vivo samples revealed good biocompatibility, with no adverse host tissue reactions up to 6 months. Preliminary results of medical‐grade PCL scaffolds, which were implanted for 2 years in a critical‐sized rabbit calvarial defect site, are also reported here and support our scaffold design goal for gradual and late molecular weight decreases combined with excellent long‐term biocompatibility and bone regeneration. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res, 2009

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jbm.a.32052

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 21 references

Cited by

See all 599

Metadata

Authors
Lam, C. X. F., Hutmacher, D. W., Schantz, J., Woodruff, M. A., & Teoh, S. H.
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-07-21
Volume
90A
Issue
3
Pages
906-919
ISSN
  • 1549-3296 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-4965
OpenAlex
W2120980993
Cited by
599
References
21
FWCI
8.31
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: Evaluation of polycaprolactone scaffold degradation for 6 months in vitro and in vivo. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jbm.a.32052
The paper
Lam, C. X. F., Hutmacher, D. W., Schantz, J., Woodruff, M. A., & Teoh, S. H. (2009). Evaluation of polycaprolactone scaffold degradation for 6 months in vitro and in vivo. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32052

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.