Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

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

The pore size of polycaprolactone scaffolds has limited influence on bone regeneration in an in vivo model

Roosa, Sara M. Mantila, Kemppainen, Jessica M., Moffitt, Erin N., Krebsbach, Paul H., Hollister, Scott J.·2010·Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A

Abstract

Bone tissue engineering scaffolds should be designed to optimize mass transport, cell migration, and mechanical integrity to facilitate and enhance new bone growth. Although many scaffold parameters could be modified to fulfill these requirements, pore size is an important scaffold characteristic that can be rigorously controlled with indirect solid freeform fabrication. We explored the effect of pore size on bone regeneration and scaffold mechanical properties using polycaprolactone (PCL) scaffolds designed with interconnected, cylindrical orthogonal pores. Three scaffold designs with unique microarchitectures were fabricated, having pore sizes of 350, 550, or 800 μm. Bone morphogenetic protein‐7 transduced human gingival fibroblasts were suspended in fibrin gel, seeded into scaffolds, and implanted subcutaneously in immuno‐compromised mice for 4 or 8 weeks. We found that (1) modulus and peak stress of the scaffold/bone constructs depended on pore size and porosity at 4 weeks but not at 8 weeks, (2) bone growth inside pores depended on pore size at 4 weeks but not at 8 weeks, and (3) the length of implantation time had a limited effect on scaffold/bone construct properties. In conclusion, pore sizes between 350 and 800 μm play a limited role in bone regeneration in this tissue engineering model. Therefore, it may be advantageous to explore the effects of other scaffold structural properties, such as pore shape, pore interconnectivity, or scaffold permeability, on bone regeneration when designing PCL scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res, 2010

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.32381

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

Cited by

See all 283

Metadata

Authors
Roosa, S. M. M., Kemppainen, J. M., Moffitt, E. N., Krebsbach, P. H., & Hollister, S. J.
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-02-02
Volume
92A
Issue
1
Pages
359-368
ISSN
  • 1549-3296 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-4965
OpenAlex
W2056318812
Cited by
283
References
1
FWCI
10.48
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: The pore size of polycaprolactone scaffolds has limited influence on bone regeneration in an in vivo model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jbm.a.32381
The paper
Roosa, S. M. M., Kemppainen, J. M., Moffitt, E. N., Krebsbach, P. H., & Hollister, S. J. (2010). The pore size of polycaprolactone scaffolds has limited influence on bone regeneration in an in vivo model. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32381

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.