↓ Skip to main content

Fabrication and Pilot In Vivo Study of a Collagen-BDDGE-Elastin Core-Shell Scaffold for Tendon Regeneration

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Fabrication and Pilot In Vivo Study of a Collagen-BDDGE-Elastin Core-Shell Scaffold for Tendon Regeneration
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2016.00052
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monica Sandri, Giuseppe Filardo, Elizaveta Kon, Silvia Panseri, Monica Montesi, Michele Iafisco, Elisa Savini, Simone Sprio, Carla Cunha, Gianluca Giavaresi, Francesca Veronesi, Milena Fini, Luca Salvatore, Alessandro Sannino, Maurilio Marcacci, Anna Tampieri

Abstract

The development of bio-devices for complete regeneration of ligament and tendon tissues is presently one of the biggest challenges in tissue engineering. Such device must simultaneously possess optimal mechanical performance, suitable porous structure, and biocompatible microenvironment. This study proposes a novel collagen-BDDGE-elastin (CBE)-based device for tendon tissue engineering, by the combination of two different modules: (i) a load-bearing, non-porous, "core scaffold" developed by braiding CBE membranes fabricated via an evaporative process and (ii) a hollow, highly porous, "shell scaffold" obtained by uniaxial freezing followed by freeze-drying of CBE suspension, designed to function as a physical guide and reservoir of cells to promote the regenerative process. Both core and shell materials demonstrated good cytocompatibility in vitro, and notably, the porous shell architecture directed cell alignment and population within the sample. Finally, a prototype of the core module was implanted in a rat tendon lesion model, and histological analysis demonstrated its safety, biocompatibility, and ability to induce tendon regeneration. Overall, our results indicate that such device may have the potential to support and induce in situ tendon regeneration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 23%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Lecturer 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Materials Science 5 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Engineering 4 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 15 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,464,797
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#3,409
of 6,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,047
of 351,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#16
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,628 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.