The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Electrospun Poly(ε-caprolactone) Microfiber and Multilayer Nanofiber/Microfiber Scaffolds: Characterization of Scaffolds and Measurement of Cellular Infiltration
Abstract
The physical and spatial architectural geometries of electrospun scaffolds are important to their application in tissue engineering strategies. In this work, poly(epsilon-caprolactone) microfiber scaffolds with average fiber diameters ranging from 2 to 10 microm were individually electrospun to determine the parameters required for reproducibly fabricating scaffolds. As fiber diameter increased, the average pore size of the scaffolds, as measured by mercury porosimetry, increased (values ranging from 20 to 45 microm), while a constant porosity was observed. To capitalize on both the larger pore sizes of the microfiber layers and the nanoscale dimensions of the nanofiber layers, layered scaffolds were fabricated by sequential electrospinning. These scaffolds consisted of alternating layers of poly(epsilon-caprolactone) microfibers and poly(epsilon-caprolactone) nanofibers. By electrospinning the nanofiber layers for different lengths of time, the thickness of the nanofiber layers could be modulated. Bilayered constructs consisting of microfiber scaffolds with varying thicknesses of nanofibers on top were generated and evaluated for their potential to affect rat marrow stromal cell attachment, spreading, and infiltration. Cell attachment after 24 h did not increase with increasing number of nanofibers, but the presence of nanofibers enhanced cell spreading as evidenced by stronger F-actin staining. Additionally, increasing the thickness of the nanofiber layer reduced the infiltration of cells into the scaffolds under both static and flow perfusion culture for the specific conditions tested. The scaffold design presented in this study allows for cellular infiltration into the scaffolds while at the same time providing nanofibers as a physical mimicry of extracellular matrix.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Keun Kwon, I., Kidoaki, S., & Matsuda, T. (2005) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.10.007 · Cited by 607
Cited by
Three-Dimensional Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications: Role of Porosity and Pore Size
Loh, Q. L., & Choong, C. (2013) · Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews · doi:10.1089/ten.teb.2012.0437 · Cited by 2,668
25th Anniversary Article: Engineering Hydrogels for Biofabrication
Malda, J., Visser, J., Melchels, F. P., Jüngst, T., Hennink, W. E., Dhert, W. J. A., Groll, J., & Hutmacher, D. W. (2013) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.201302042 · Cited by 1,901
Three-Dimensional Cell Culture Matrices: State of the Art
Lee, J., Cuddihy, M. J., & Kotov, N. A. (2008) · Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews · doi:10.1089/teb.2007.0150 · Cited by 1,047
Direct writing by way of melt electrospinning
Brown, T. D., Dalton, P. D., & Hutmacher, D. W. (2011) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.201103482 · Cited by 800
Lowery, J. L., Datta, N., & Rutledge, G. C. (2010) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.072 · Cited by 448
Metadata
- Authors
- Pham, Q. P., Sharma, U., & Mikos, A. G.
- Venue
- Biomacromolecules
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2006-09-23
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2796-2805
- ISSN
- 1525-7797 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-4602
- OpenAlex
- W2041016801
- Cited by
- 956
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.11
- 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
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.