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 accessAbstract
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.
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
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
Billiet, T., Gevaert, E., De Schryver, T., Cornelissen, M., & Dubruel, P. (2014) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.09.078 · Cited by 1,015
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
Cited by
Printability and shape fidelity of bioinks in 3D bioprinting
Schwab, A., Levato, R., D’Este, M., Piluso, S., Eglin, D., & Malda, J. (2020) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00084 · Cited by 1,359
Progress in 3D bioprinting technology for tissue/organ regenerative engineering
Matai, I., Kaur, G., Seyedsalehi, A., McClinton, A., & Laurencin, C. T. (2020) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119536 · Cited by 1,156
Bioinks and bioprinting technologies to make heterogeneous and biomimetic tissue constructs
Ashammakhi, N., Ahadian, S., Xu, C., Montazerian, H., Ko, H., Nasiri, R., Barros, N., & Khademhosseini, A. (2019) · Materials Today Bio · doi:10.1016/j.mtbio.2019.100008 · Cited by 549
Yang, X., Lu, Z., Wu, H., Li, W., Zheng, L., & Zhao, J. (2018) · Materials Science and Engineering: C · doi:10.1016/j.msec.2017.09.002 · Cited by 533
Assessment methodologies for extrusion-based bioink printability
Gillispie, G., Prim, P., Copus, J., Fisher, J., Mikos, A. G., Yoo, J. J., Atala, A., & Lee, S. J. (2020) · Biofabrication · doi:10.1088/1758-5090/ab6f0d · Cited by 426
Metadata
- Authors
- Daly, A. C., Critchley, S. E., Rencsok, E. M., & Kelly, D. J.
- Venue
- Biofabrication
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- 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.