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
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.
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
Li, S. M., Garreau, H., & Vert, M. (1990) · Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf00700871 · Cited by 733
Chloroform Mode of Action: Implications for Cancer Risk Assessment
Golden, R. J., Holm, S. E., Robinson, D. E., Julkunen, P. H., & Reese, E. A. (1997) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1006/rtph.1997.1161 · Cited by 76
Cited by
Hydrogels in regenerative medicine
Slaughter, B. V., Khurshid, S. S., Fisher, O. Z., Khademhosseini, A., & Peppas, N. A. (2009) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.200802106 · Cited by 2,703
Normal Bone Anatomy and Physiology
Clarke, B. (2008) · Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · doi:10.2215/cjn.04151206 · Cited by 2,192
Recent advances in 3D printing of biomaterials
Chia, H. N., & Wu, B. M. (2015) · Journal of Biological Engineering · doi:10.1186/s13036-015-0001-4 · Cited by 1,734
Hutmacher, D. W., Sittinger, M., & Risbud, M. V. (2004) · Trends in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2004.05.005 · Cited by 1,121
Gauvin, R., Chen, Y.-C., Lee, J. W., Soman, P., Zorlutuna, P., Nichol, J. W., Bae, H., Chen, S., & Khademhosseini, A. (2012) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.01.048 · Cited by 641
“Interconnections between pores also play an important role in cell seeding, migration and nutrient transport during culture of the scaffolds [39,56].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Zeltinger, J., Sherwood, J. K., Graham, D. A., Müeller, R., & Griffith, L. G.
- Venue
- Tissue Engineering
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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.