Cited by 112Bone Tissue Engineering MaterialsPhase Equilibria and ThermodynamicsPolymer Foaming and Composites

Processing of Materials for Regenerative Medicine Using Supercritical Fluid Technology

García-González, Carlos A., Concheiro, Angel, Alvarez-Lorenzo, Carmen·2015·Bioconjugate Chemistry

Abstract

The increase in the world demand of bone and cartilage replacement therapies urges the development of advanced synthetic scaffolds for regenerative purposes, not only providing mechanical support for tissue formation, but also promoting and guiding the tissue growth. Conventional manufacturing techniques have severe restrictions for designing these upgraded scaffolds, namely, regarding the use of organic solvents, shearing forces, and high operating temperatures. In this context, the use of supercritical fluid technology has emerged as an attractive solution to design solvent-free scaffolds and ingredients for scaffolds under mild processing conditions. The state-of-the-art on the technological endeavors for scaffold production using supercritical fluids is presented in this work with a critical review on the key processing parameters as well as the main advantages and limitations of each technique. A special stress is focused on the strategies suitable for the incorporation of bioactive agents (drugs, bioactive glasses, and growth factors) and the in vitro and in vivo performance of supercritical CO2-processed scaffolds.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/bc5005922

Cites

140 of 140 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • PLCL materials fabricated via supercritical CO2 foaming tend to have higher porosity and lower density; higher specific surface area can improve biocompatibility and cell adhesion but mechanical strength is reduced.

    “PLCL materials fabricated via supercritical CO₂ foaming technology tend to have higher porosity and lower density. Higher specific surface area can improve the biocompatibility and cell adhesion of the materials, but the mechanical strength is also reduced [65].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
García-González, C. A., Concheiro, A., & Alvarez-Lorenzo, C.
Affiliations
Departamento de Farmacia y Tecnología Farmacéutica, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, E-15782-Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Venue
Bioconjugate Chemistry
Published
2015-01-26
Volume
26
Issue
7
Pages
1159-1171
ISSN
  • 1043-1802 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4812
OpenAlex
W2323877680
Cited by
112
References
140
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bioconjugate Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
MICINN
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Phase Equilibria and Thermodynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Polymers and Plastics › Polymer Foaming and Composites
Keywords
supercritical fluid processing, supercritical carbon dioxide, tissue engineering scaffolds, bone replacement, cartilage replacement, bioactive glass, growth factors, drug incorporation, scaffold mechanical properties, scaffold biocompatibility
MeSH terms
Animals, Biocompatible Materials, Carbon Dioxide, Equipment Design, Humans, Drug Delivery Systems, Tissue Engineering, Regenerative Medicine, Tissue Scaffolds

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