Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

In vivo evaluation of a multiphased scaffold designed for orthopaedic interface tissue engineering and soft tissue‐to‐bone integration

Open access
Spalazzi, Jeffrey P., Dagher, Elias, Doty, Stephen B., Guo, X. Edward, Rodeo, Scott A., Lu, Helen H.·2008·Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A

Abstract

Achieving functional graft integration with subchondral bone poses a significant challenge for orthopaedic soft tissue repair and reconstruction. Soft tissues such as the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) integrate with bone through a fibrocartilage interface, which minimizes stress concentrations and mediates load transfer between soft and hard tissues. We propose that biological fixation can be achieved by regenerating this fibrocartilage interface on biological or synthetic ACL grafts. This study focuses on the in vivo evaluation of a stratified scaffold predesigned to mimic the multitissue transition found at the ACL‐to‐bone interface. Specifically, the scaffold consists of three distinct yet continuous phases: Phase A for ligament formation, Phase B for the interface, and Phase C for the bone region. Interface‐relevant cell types, specifically fibroblasts, chondrocytes, and osteoblasts, will be tri‐cultured on this scaffold, and the formation of cell type‐ and phase‐specific matrix heterogeneity as well as fibrocartilage formation will be evaluated over 8 weeks in a subcutaneous athymic rat model. Acellular scaffolds as well as scaffolds co‐cultured with fibroblasts and osteoblasts will serve as controls. It was found that the triphasic scaffold supported multilineage cellular interactions as well as tissue infiltration and abundant matrix production in vivo. In addition, controlled phase‐specific matrix heterogeneity was induced on the scaffold, with distinct mineral and fibrocartilage‐like tissue regions formed in the tri‐cultured group. Cell seeding had a positive effect on both host infiltration and matrix elaboration, which also translated into increased mechanical properties in the seeded groups compared to the acellular controls. In summary, the biomimetic and multiphasic design coupled with spatial control of cell distribution enables multitissue regeneration on the stratified scaffold, and demonstrates the potential for regenerating the interface between soft tissue grafts and bone. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res, 2008

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.32073

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 191

Metadata

Authors
Spalazzi, J. P., Dagher, E., Doty, S. B., Guo, X. E., Rodeo, S. A., & Lu, H. H.
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-04-28
Volume
86A
Issue
1
Pages
1-12
ISSN
  • 1549-3296 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-4965
OpenAlex
W2126618607
Cited by
191
References
1
FWCI
8.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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 evaluation of a multiphased scaffold designed for orthopaedic interface tissue engineering and soft tissue‐to‐bone integration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jbm.a.32073
The paper
Spalazzi, J. P., Dagher, E., Doty, S. B., Guo, X. E., Rodeo, S. A., & Lu, H. H. (2008). In vivo evaluation of a multiphased scaffold designed for orthopaedic interface tissue engineering and soft tissue‐to‐bone integration. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32073

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.