CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 49Bone Tissue Engineering MaterialsSilk-based biomaterials and applicationsTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A silk fibroin/chitosan/nanohydroxyapatite biomimetic bone scaffold combined with autologous concentrated growth factor promotes the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs and repair of critical bone defects

Open access
Zhou, Yi, Liu, Xiaoyan, She, Hongjiang, Wang, Rui, Bai, Fan, Xiang, Bingyan·2022·Regenerative Therapy
DOI 10.1016/j.reth.2022.08.006PMC PMC9459434
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Purpose: With the goal of increasing the translational efficiency of bone tissue engineering for practical clinical applications, biomimetic composite scaffolds combined with autologous endogenous growth factors for repairing bone defects have become a current research hotspot. In this study, we prepared a silk fibroin/chitosan/nanohydroxyapatite (SF/CS/nHA) composite biomimetic scaffold and then combined it with autologous concentrated growth factor (CGF) to explore the effect of this combination on the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) and the efficiency of repairing critical radial defects. Methods: Three kinds of SF/CS/nHA composite biomimetic scaffolds with mass fractions of 3%, 4%, and 5% were prepared by vacuum freeze-drying and chemical cross-linking methods, and the characteristics of the scaffolds were evaluated. In vitro, BMSCs were seeded on SF/CS/nHA scaffolds, and then CGF was added. The morphology and proliferation of BMSCs were evaluated by live-dead staining, phalloidin staining, and CCK-8 assays. ALP staining, alizarin red staining, cellular immunofluorescence, RT-PCR, and Western blotting were used to detect the osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs. In vivo, a rabbit radius critical bone defect model was constructed, and the SF/CS/nHA-BMSC scaffold cell complex combined with CGF was implanted. The effect on bone defect repair was evaluated by 3D CT scanning, HE staining, Masson staining, and immunohistochemistry. Results: The characteristics of 4% SF/CS/nHA were the most suitable for repairing bone defects. In vitro, the SF/CS/nHA combined CGF group showed better adhesion, cell morphology, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs than the other groups (P < 0.05 for all). In vivo imaging examination and histological analysis demonstrated that the SF/CS/nHA scaffold combined with CGF had better efficiency in bone defect repair than the other scaffolds (P < 0.05 for all). Conclusions: A SF/CS/nHA composite biomimetic bone scaffold combined with autologous CGF promoted the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs in vitro and improved the repair efficiency of critical bone defects in vivo. This combination may have the potential for clinical translation due to its excellent biocompatibility.

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 · 10.1016/j.reth.2022.08.006

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Graphical abstract
Graphical abstract CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 1 Characterization of the SF/CS/nHA scaffold (A) Appearance of the SF/CS/nHA scaffold (B–C) SEM image of SF/CS/nHA scaffold (D–G) relevant parameters of the SF/CS/nHA scaffold (H–I) energy dispersive spectrometry analysis of the SF/CS/nHA scaffold. SEM, scanning electron microscopy.
Fig. 1 Characterization of the SF/CS/nHA scaffold (A) Appearance of the SF/CS/nHA scaffold (B–C) SEM image of SF/CS/nHA scaffold (D–G) relevant parameters of the SF/CS/nHA scaffold (H–I) energy dispersive spectrometry analysis of the SF/CS/nHA scaffold. SEM, scanning electron microscopy.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Preparation of CGF, cell culture and cell adhesion in scaffolds (A–C) Preparation of CGF (D) BMSC culture in the SF/CS/nHA scaffold (E) light microscopy image of BMSCs (F–H) SEM image of BMSCs in the SF/CS/nHA scaffold; SEM, scanning electron microscopy; Red Arrow, BMSCs; Green Arrow, calcium crystals.
Fig. 2 Preparation of CGF, cell culture and cell adhesion in scaffolds (A–C) Preparation of CGF (D) BMSC culture in the SF/CS/nHA scaffold (E) light microscopy image of BMSCs (F–H) SEM image of BMSCs in the SF/CS/nHA scaffold; SEM, scanning electron microscopy; Red Arrow, BMSCs; Green Arrow, calcium crystals.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 BMSCs proliferation and morphology detection (A) Live/dead staining of BMSCs (B) the percentage of living BMSCs among the three groups (n = 3) (C) microfilament skeleton of BMSCs stained with phalloidin (D) the CCK-8 assays showing the proliferation ability of BMSCs among the three groups (n = 4). ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001 compared with the BM–SCN–CGF group.
Fig. 3 BMSCs proliferation and morphology detection (A) Live/dead staining of BMSCs (B) the percentage of living BMSCs among the three groups (n = 3) (C) microfilament skeleton of BMSCs stained with phalloidin (D) the CCK-8 assays showing the proliferation ability of BMSCs among the three groups (n = 4). ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001 compared with the BM–SCN–CGF group.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 ALP staining and Alizarin red staining (A) ALP staining images of BMSCs under a microscope after 7 d of osteoinduction (B) Quantitative results of ALP staining (n = 4) (C) Alizarin red staining images of BMSCs under a microscope after 21 d of osteoinduction (D) Quantitative results of Alizarin red staining (n = 4). ALP, alkaline phosphatase; IOD, integrated optical density; ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01 compared with the BM group, #p < 0.05 compared with the BM-SCN group.
Fig. 4 ALP staining and Alizarin red staining (A) ALP staining images of BMSCs under a microscope after 7 d of osteoinduction (B) Quantitative results of ALP staining (n = 4) (C) Alizarin red staining images of BMSCs under a microscope after 21 d of osteoinduction (D) Quantitative results of Alizarin red staining (n = 4). ALP, alkaline phosphatase; IOD, integrated optical density; ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01 compared with the BM group, #p < 0.05 compared with the BM-SCN group.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 The fluorescence of Runx-2 and Col-1 in the three groups (A) The fluorescence of Runx-2 after 7 d of osteoinduction (B) semi-quantitative fluorescence results of expression of Runx-2 (n = 3) (C) The fluorescence of Col-1 after 14 d of osteoinduction (D) semi-quantitative fluorescence results of expression of Col-1 (n = 3).∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001 compared with the BM group, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001 compared with the BM-SCN group.
Fig. 5 The fluorescence of Runx-2 and Col-1 in the three groups (A) The fluorescence of Runx-2 after 7 d of osteoinduction (B) semi-quantitative fluorescence results of expression of Runx-2 (n = 3) (C) The fluorescence of Col-1 after 14 d of osteoinduction (D) semi-quantitative fluorescence results of expression of Col-1 (n = 3).∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001 compared with the BM group, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001 compared with the BM-SCN group.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs at the gene and protein levels (A–D) The gene expression of Runx-2, OCN, Col-1, and VEGF after 14 d of osteoinduction (n = 3) (E) A Western blot assay was used to detect the protein expression levels of Runx-2, OCN, Col-1, and VEGF after 14 d of osteoinduction (F–I) Quantitative results of Western blot assays (n = 3). ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001 compared with the BM group, #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01 compared with the BM-SCN group.
Fig. 6 Osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs at the gene and protein levels (A–D) The gene expression of Runx-2, OCN, Col-1, and VEGF after 14 d of osteoinduction (n = 3) (E) A Western blot assay was used to detect the protein expression levels of Runx-2, OCN, Col-1, and VEGF after 14 d of osteoinduction (F–I) Quantitative results of Western blot assays (n = 3). ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001 compared with the BM group, #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01 compared with the BM-SCN group.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 7 Surgical procedure (A) The radial bone defect was constructed, the defects were treated with BMSCs (BM group) (B–C) The defects were treated with the scaffold-BMSC complex (BM-SCN group) (D) The defects were treated with CGF membrane combined with the scaffold-BMSC complex (BM–SCN–CGF group) (E) CGF membrane was completely coated onto the surface of the SF-CS-nHA scaffold (F) The incision was sutured (G–I) General observation of gross samples; Yellow arrow, CGF membrane; Red arrow, defects of the radius.
Fig. 7 Surgical procedure (A) The radial bone defect was constructed, the defects were treated with BMSCs (BM group) (B–C) The defects were treated with the scaffold-BMSC complex (BM-SCN group) (D) The defects were treated with CGF membrane combined with the scaffold-BMSC complex (BM–SCN–CGF group) (E) CGF membrane was completely coated onto the surface of the SF-CS-nHA scaffold (F) The incision was sutured (G–I) General observation of gross samples; Yellow arrow, CGF membrane; Red arrow, defects of the radius.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 8 The repair of bone defects was evaluated by 3D CT (A) 3D reconstruction and sagittal image at 4, 8, and 12 weeks (B) Lane-Sandhu radiology score evaluated the repair of radial bone defects among the three groups (n = 6) (C) bone mineral density of the radial bone defect area quantified by 3D-CT (n = 6); BMD, bone mineral density; ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001 compared with BM group, #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01 compared with the BM-SCN group.
Fig. 8 The repair of bone defects was evaluated by 3D CT (A) 3D reconstruction and sagittal image at 4, 8, and 12 weeks (B) Lane-Sandhu radiology score evaluated the repair of radial bone defects among the three groups (n = 6) (C) bone mineral density of the radial bone defect area quantified by 3D-CT (n = 6); BMD, bone mineral density; ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001 compared with BM group, #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01 compared with the BM-SCN group.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 9 Histological analysis of bone regeneration in vivo (A) Hematoxylin–eosin (HE) staining, Masson staining, immunohistochemistry of Col-1 and CD31 and immunohistofluorescence of Col-1 (B) New bone formation area quantified by Masson staining (n = 6) (C–D) Expression of COL-1 and CD31 quantified by immunohistochemistry (n = 6) (E) Expression of COL-1 quantified by immunohistofluorescence (n = 6). F, fibrous tissue; C, type I collagen; TB, trabecular bone; NB, new bone; Black arrow, remaining scaffold; Black star, transition zone between the remaining scaffold and the new bone. ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001 compared with the BM group, #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01 compared with the BM-SCN group.
Fig. 9 Histological analysis of bone regeneration in vivo (A) Hematoxylin–eosin (HE) staining, Masson staining, immunohistochemistry of Col-1 and CD31 and immunohistofluorescence of Col-1 (B) New bone formation area quantified by Masson staining (n = 6) (C–D) Expression of COL-1 and CD31 quantified by immunohistochemistry (n = 6) (E) Expression of COL-1 quantified by immunohistofluorescence (n = 6). F, fibrous tissue; C, type I collagen; TB, trabecular bone; NB, new bone; Black arrow, remaining scaffold; Black star, transition zone between the remaining scaffold and the new bone. ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001 compared with the BM group, #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01 compared with the BM-SCN group.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. Fu, 2021, An overview of polyester/hydroxyapatite composites for bone tissue repairing, J Orthop Translat, 28, 118, 10.1016/j.jot.2021.02.005 · DOI
  2. Song, 2022, Osteon-mimetic 3D nanofibrous scaffold enhances stem cell proliferation and osteogenic differentiation for bone regeneration, Biomater Sci, 10, 1090, 10.1039/D1BM01489G · DOI
  3. Wang, 2022, Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell sheets with high expression of hBD3 and CTGF promote periodontal regeneration, Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl
  4. Grande, 2016, Titanium dioxide nanoparticles: a risk for human Health?, Mini Rev Med Chem, 16, 762, 10.2174/1389557516666160321114341 · DOI
  5. Han, 2019, Strontium-incorporated mineralized PLLA nanofibrous membranes for promoting bone defect repair, Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 179, 363, 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2019.04.011 · DOI
  6. Li, 2013, Discerning the subfibrillar structure of mineralized collagen fibrils: a model for the ultrastructure of bone, PLoS One, 8
  7. Song, 2021, Constructing a biomimetic nanocomposite with the in situ deposition of spherical hydroxyapatite nanoparticles to induce bone regeneration, J Mater Chem B, 9, 2469, 10.1039/D0TB02648D · DOI
  8. Zhao, 2021, In situ forming cellulose nanofibril-reinforced hyaluronic acid hydrogel for cartilage regeneration, Biomacromolecules, 22, 5097, 10.1021/acs.biomac.1c01063 · DOI
  9. Zhan, 2021, Biomineralized composite liquid crystal fiber scaffold promotes bone regeneration by enhancement of osteogenesis and angiogenesis, Front Pharmacol, 12, 10.3389/fphar.2021.736301 · DOI
  10. Hassanzadeh, 2021, Development and biocompatibility of the injectable collagen/nano-hydroxyapatite scaffolds as in situ forming hydrogel for the hard tissue engineering application, Artif Cell Nanomed Biotechnol, 49, 136, 10.1080/21691401.2021.1877153 · DOI
  11. Madhavasarma, 2020, Studies on physiochemical modifications on biologically important hydroxyapatite materials and their characterization for medical applications, Biophys Chem, 267, 10.1016/j.bpc.2020.106474 · DOI
  12. Guo, 2021, Photothermal regenerated fibers with enhanced toughness: silk fibroin/MoS2 nanoparticles, Polymers, 13, 3937, 10.3390/polym13223937 · DOI
  13. Khosropanah, 2022, Biomedical applications of silkworm (Bombyx Mori) proteins in regenerative medicine (a narrative review), J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 16, 91, 10.1002/term.3267 · DOI
  14. Ambaye, 2022, Preparation and applications of chitosan and cellulose composite materials, J Environ Manage, 301
  15. Guo, 2021, Effective immobilization of Bacillus subtilis in chitosan-sodium alginate composite carrier for ammonia removal from anaerobically digested swine wastewater, Chemosphere, 284, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131266 · DOI
  16. Xiao, 2019, Osteochondral repair using scaffolds with gradient pore sizes constructed with silk fibroin, chitosan, and nano-hydroxyapatite, Int J Nanomedicine, 14, 2011, 10.2147/IJN.S191627 · DOI
  17. Shah, 2014, Adaptive growth factor delivery from a polyelectrolyte coating promotes synergistic bone tissue repair and reconstruction, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 111, 12847, 10.1073/pnas.1408035111 · DOI
  18. Borsani, 2020, In vitro effects of concentrated growth factors (CGF) on human SH-SY5Y neuronal cells, Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 24, 304
  19. Tabatabaei, 2020, In vitro and in vivo effects of concentrated growth factor on cells and tissues, J Biomed Mater Res, 108, 1338, 10.1002/jbm.a.36906 · DOI
  20. Rodella, 2011, Growth factors, CD34 positive cells, and fibrin network analysis in concentrated growth factors fraction, Microsc Res Tech, 74, 772, 10.1002/jemt.20968 · DOI
  21. Rochira, 2020, Concentrated growth factors (CGF) induce osteogenic differentiation in human bone marrow stem cells, Biology, 9, 370, 10.3390/biology9110370 · DOI
  22. Yamaguchi, 2020, Concentrated growth factor matrices prepared using Silica-coated plastic tubes are distinguishable from those prepared using Glass tubes in platelet distribution: application of a novel near-infrared imaging-based, quantitative technique, Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 8, 600, 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00600 · DOI
  23. Masuki, 2016, Growth factor and pro-inflammatory cytokine contents in platelet-rich plasma (PRP), plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF), advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF), and concentrated growth factors (CGF), Int J Implant Dent, 2, 19, 10.1186/s40729-016-0052-4 · DOI
  24. Aizawa, 2020, Quantitative near-infrared imaging of platelets in platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) matrices: comparative analysis of bio-PRF, leukocyte-rich PRF, advanced-PRF and concentrated growth factors, Int J Mol Sci, 21, 4426, 10.3390/ijms21124426 · DOI
  25. Kang, 2011, Platelet-rich fibrin is a Bioscaffold and reservoir of growth factors for tissue regeneration, Tissue Eng Part A, 17, 349, 10.1089/ten.tea.2010.0327 · DOI
  26. Wang, 2020, Application of a new type of natural calcined bone repair material combined with concentrated growth factors in bone regeneration in rabbit critical-sized calvarial defect, BioMed Res Int, 2020
  27. Fang, 2020, Clinical application of concentrated growth factor fibrin combined with bone repair materials in jaw defects, J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 78, 882, 10.1016/j.joms.2020.01.037 · DOI
  28. Dai, 2020, Efficacy of concentrated growth factors combined with mineralized collagen on quality of life and bone reconstruction of guided bone regeneration, Regen Biomater, 7, 313, 10.1093/rb/rbaa007 · DOI
  29. Chen, 2019, Modulation of proliferation and differentiation of gingiva-derived mesenchymal stem cells by concentrated growth factors: potential implications in tissue engineering for dental regeneration and repair, Int J Mol Med, 44, 37
  30. Honda, 2013, Bone tissue engineering with bone marrow-derived stromal cells integrated with concentrated growth factor in Rattus norvegicus calvaria defect model, J Artif Organs, 16, 305, 10.1007/s10047-013-0711-7 · DOI
  31. Leng, 2020, Platelet-rich plasma-enhanced osseointegration of decellularized bone matrix in critical-size radial defects in rabbits, Ann Transl Med, 8, 198, 10.21037/atm.2020.01.53 · DOI
  32. Liu, 2021, The effect of enhanced bone marrow in conjunction with 3D-printed PLA-HA in the repair of critical-sized bone defects in a rabbit model, Ann Transl Med, 9, 1134, 10.21037/atm-20-8198 · DOI
  33. Sun, 2022, The induced membrane technique: optimization of bone grafting in a rat model of segmental bone defect, Injury, 53, 1848, 10.1016/j.injury.2022.03.023 · DOI
  34. Kim, 2021, Effect of morphological characteristics and biomineralization of 3D-printed gelatin/hyaluronic acid/hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds on bone tissue regeneration, Int J Mol Sci, 22, 6792
  35. Li, 2021, CGF membrane promotes periodontal tissue regeneration mediated by hUCMSCs through upregulating TAZ and osteogenic differentiation genes, Stem Cells Int, 2021, 10.1155/2021/6644366 · DOI
  36. Bonazza, 2016, How the different material and shape of the blood collection tube influences the Concentrated Growth Factors production, Microsc Res Tech, 79, 1173, 10.1002/jemt.22772 · DOI
  37. Fang, 2022, Metformin-Incorporated gelatin/nano-hydroxyapatite scaffolds promotes bone regeneration in critical size rat alveolar bone defect model, Int J Mol Sci, 23, 558, 10.3390/ijms23010558 · DOI
  38. Sun, 2016, Comparison of three-dimensional printing and vacuum freeze-dried techniques for fabricating composite scaffolds, Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 477, 1085, 10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.07.050 · DOI
  39. Li, 2018, Silk fibroin/chitosan thin film promotes osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation of rat bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells, J Biomater Appl, 32, 1164, 10.1177/0885328218757767 · DOI
  40. Singh, 2018, Fabrication and evaluation of non-mulberry silk fibroin fiber reinforced chitosan based porous composite scaffold for cartilage tissue engineering, Tissue Cell, 55, 83, 10.1016/j.tice.2018.10.003 · DOI
  41. David, 2018, Biologically anchored chitosan/gelatin-SrHAP scaffold fabricated on Titanium against chronic osteomyelitis infection, Int J Biol Macromol, 110, 206, 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.11.174 · DOI
  42. Brennan, 2019, The effect of pore size within fibrous scaffolds fabricated using melt electrowriting on human bone marrow stem cell osteogenesis, Biomed Mater, 14, 10.1088/1748-605X/ab49f2 · DOI
  43. Wang, 2021, PDGF-BB induces conversion, proliferation, migration, and collagen synthesis of oral mucosal fibroblasts through PDGFR-β/PI3K/AKT signaling pathway, Cancer Biomark, 30, 407, 10.3233/CBM-201681 · DOI
  44. Mishima, 2021, Detection and quantification of transforming growth factor-β1 produced by murine B cells: pros and cons of different techniques, Methods Mol Biol, 2270, 113, 10.1007/978-1-0716-1237-8_7 · DOI
  45. Tian, 2019, Concentrated growth factor promotes dental pulp cells proliferation and mineralization and facilitates recovery of dental pulp tissue, Med Sci Monit, 25, 10016, 10.12659/MSM.919316 · DOI
  46. Song, 2021, Constructing a biomimetic nanocomposite with the in situ deposition of spherical hydroxyapatite nanoparticles to induce bone regeneration, J Mater Chem B, 9, 2469, 10.1039/D0TB02648D · DOI
  47. Chen, 2021, Curcumin modulates the crosstalk between macrophages and bone mesenchymal stem cells to ameliorate osteogenesis, Front Cell Dev Biol, 9
  48. Li, 2020, Synergistic anti-inflammatory and osteogenic n-HA/resveratrol/chitosan composite microspheres for osteoporotic bone regeneration, Bioact Mater, 6, 1255
  49. Mizokami, 2017, Osteocalcin and its endocrine functions, Biochem Pharmacol, 132, 1, 10.1016/j.bcp.2017.02.001 · DOI
  50. Qi, 2020, Concentrated growth factor promotes gingival regeneration through the AKT/Wnt/β-catenin and YAP signaling pathways, Artif Cell Nanomed Biotechnol, 48, 920, 10.1080/21691401.2020.1773482 · DOI
  51. Arıcan, 2022, Micro-ct findings of concentrated growth factors (cgf) on bone healing in masquelet's technique-an experimental study in rabbits, Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 142, 83, 10.1007/s00402-020-03596-z · DOI
  52. Sadeghzadeh, 2022, PCL/Col I-based magnetic nanocomposite scaffold provides an osteoinductive environment for ADSCs in osteogenic cues-free media conditions, Stem Cell Res Ther, 13, 143, 10.1186/s13287-022-02816-0 · DOI
  53. Yılmaz, 2018, Effects of concentrated growth factors (CGF) on the quality of the induced membrane in Masquelet's technique - an experimental study in rabbits, Injury, 49, 1497, 10.1016/j.injury.2018.06.011 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 49

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, Y., Liu, X., She, H., Wang, R., Bai, F., & Xiang, B.
Affiliations
Zunyi Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
Xiang, Bingyan
ORCID
Venue
Regenerative Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-12
Volume
21
Pages
307-321
ISSN
2352-3204 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.reth.2022.08.006
PMC
PMC9459434
OpenAlex
W4294216765
Cited by
49
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Regenerative Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Health Commission of Guizhou Province
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Silk-based biomaterials and applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Keywords
silk fibroin, chitosan, hydroxyapatite nanoparticles, bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells, osteogenic differentiation, cell proliferation, radial bone defect, bone tissue engineering, vacuum freeze-drying, crosslinking, rabbit model, clinical translation, endogenous growth factors

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: A silk fibroin/chitosan/nanohydroxyapatite biomimetic bone scaffold combined with autologous concentrated growth factor promotes the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs and repair of critical bone defects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.reth.2022.08.006
The paper
Zhou, Y., Liu, X., She, H., Wang, R., Bai, F., & Xiang, B. (2022). A silk fibroin/chitosan/nanohydroxyapatite biomimetic bone scaffold combined with autologous concentrated growth factor promotes the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs and repair of critical bone defects. Regenerative Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reth.2022.08.006