Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 794

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Pore Size and Void Fraction on Cellular Adhesion, Proliferation, and Matrix Deposition

Zeltinger, Joan, Sherwood, Jill K., Graham, Dionne A., Müeller, Ralph, Griffith, Linda G.·2001·Tissue Engineering

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the influence of two key scaffold design parameters, void fraction (VF) and pore size, on the attachment, growth, and extracellular matrix deposition by several cell types. Disc-shaped, porous, poly(-lactic acid) (L-PLA) scaffolds were manufactured by the TheriForm solid free-form fabrication process to generate scaffolds with two VF (75% and 90%) and four pore size distributions (< 38, 38-63, 63-106, and 106-150 microm). Microcomputed tomography analysis revealed that the average pore size was generally larger than the NaCl used, while VF was at or near the designated percentage. The response of three cell types-canine dermal fibroblasts (DmFb), vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMC), or microvascular epithelial cells (MVEC)-to variations in architecture during a 4-week culture period were assessed using histology, metabolic activity, and extracellular matrix deposition as comparative metrics. DmFb, VSMC, and MVEC showed uniform seeding on scaffolds with 90% VF for each pore size, in contrast to the corresponding 75% VF scaffolds. DmFb showed the least selectivity for pore sizes. VSMC displayed equivalent cell proliferation and matrix deposition for the three largest pore sizes. MVEC formed disconnected webs of tissue with sparse extracellular matrix at 90% VF and >38 to 150 microm; however, when cultured on scaffolds with pores formed with salt particles of <38 microm, MVEC formed a multilayered lining on the scaffolds surface. Culture data from scaffolds with a 75% VF suggests that the structural features were unsuitable for tissue formation. Hence, there were limits of acceptable scaffold architecture (VF, pore size) that modulated in vitro cellular responses.

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 · 10.1089/107632701753213183

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 794

Metadata

Authors
Zeltinger, J., Sherwood, J. K., Graham, D. A., Müeller, R., & Griffith, L. G.
Venue
Tissue Engineering
Published
2001-10
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
557-572
ISSN
  • 1076-3279 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8690
OpenAlex
W2016811506
Cited by
794
References
2
FWCI
15.10
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of Pore Size and Void Fraction on Cellular Adhesion, Proliferation, and Matrix Deposition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/107632701753213183
The paper
Zeltinger, J., Sherwood, J. K., Graham, D. A., Müeller, R., & Griffith, L. G. (2001). Effect of Pore Size and Void Fraction on Cellular Adhesion, Proliferation, and Matrix Deposition. Tissue Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1089/107632701753213183

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.