Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 436

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparison of different bioinks for 3D bioprinting of fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage

Open access
Daly, Andrew C, Critchley, Susan E, Rencsok, Emily M, Kelly, Daniel J·2016·Biofabrication

Abstract

Cartilage is a dense connective tissue with limited self-repair capabilities. Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) laden hydrogels are commonly used for fibrocartilage and articular cartilage tissue engineering, however they typically lack the mechanical integrity for implantation into high load bearing environments. This has led to increased interested in 3D bioprinting of cell laden hydrogel bioinks reinforced with stiffer polymer fibres. The objective of this study was to compare a range of commonly used hydrogel bioinks (agarose, alginate, GelMA and BioINK™) for their printing properties and capacity to support the development of either hyaline cartilage or fibrocartilage in vitro . Each hydrogel was seeded with MSCs, cultured for 28 days in the presence of TGF- β 3 and then analysed for markers indicative of differentiation towards either a fibrocartilaginous or hyaline cartilage-like phenotype. Alginate and agarose hydrogels best supported the development of hyaline-like cartilage, as evident by the development of a tissue staining predominantly for type II collagen. In contrast, GelMA and BioINK ™ (a PEGMA based hydrogel) supported the development of a more fibrocartilage-like tissue, as evident by the development of a tissue containing both type I and type II collagen. GelMA demonstrated superior printability, generating structures with greater fidelity, followed by the alginate and agarose bioinks. High levels of MSC viability were observed in all bioinks post-printing (∼80%). Finally we demonstrate that it is possible to engineer mechanically reinforced hydrogels with high cell viability by co-depositing a hydrogel bioink with polycaprolactone filaments, generating composites with bulk compressive moduli comparable to articular cartilage. This study demonstrates the importance of the choice of bioink when bioprinting different cartilaginous tissues for musculoskeletal applications.

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 · 10.1088/1758-5090/8/4/045002

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 436

Metadata

Authors
Daly, A. C., Critchley, S. E., Rencsok, E. M., & Kelly, D. J.
Venue
Biofabrication
Published
2016-10-07
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
045002
ISSN
  • 1758-5082 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-5090
OpenAlex
W2528088648
Cited by
436
References
3
FWCI
16.26
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: A comparison of different bioinks for 3D bioprinting of fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/1758-5090/8/4/045002
The paper
Daly, A. C., Critchley, S. E., Rencsok, E. M., & Kelly, D. J. (2016). A comparison of different bioinks for 3D bioprinting of fibrocartilage and hyaline cartilage. Biofabrication. https://doi.org/10.1088/1758-5090/8/4/045002

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.