You're viewing our updated article page. If you need more time to adjust, you can return to the old layout.

CORRECTION article

Front. Drug Deliv., 18 July 2024

Sec. Technological and Methodological Advances in Drug Delivery

Volume 4 - 2024 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fddev.2024.1452132

Corrigendum: Core-shell 3D printed biodegradable calcium phosphate cement – Alginate scaffolds for possible bone regeneration applications

  • 1. G.E.R.N. Center of Tissue Replacement, Regeneration and Neogenesis, Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical Center-Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

  • 2. Institute for Applied Biomechanics, Faculty of Mechanical and Process Engineering, Offenburg University, Offenburg, Germany

  • 3. Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical Center-Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

  • 4. Freiburg Center for Interactive Materials and Bioinspired Technologies (FIT), Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Article metrics

View details

1,2k

Views

405

Downloads

In the published article, there was an error in Table 1 as published. An X was incorrectly placed at GP4 for PBS 1 week. The corrected Table 1 and its caption Table 1: Classification of the groups according to post treatment appear below.

TABLE 1

Group post treatment GP1 GP2 GP3 GP4 GP5 GP6 GP7 GP8
(Self)Setting/crosslinking for 1d X X
Water-saturated atmosphere 3d X X X X X
PBS 1 week X X X
TRIS pH5 2 weeks X X
TRIS pH 7.4 2 weeks X X
Freeze X
Alginate coating X

Classification of the groups according to post treatment.

In the published article, there was an error. In several instances, GP4 was incorrectly used instead of GP3.

A correction has been made to Results, 3.2.1 Mechanical properties, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:

“It can be observed that the samples in GP1 (reference) and GP4 (freeze-dried) exhibit significantly lower maximum values.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“It can be observed that the samples in GP1 (reference) and GP3 (freeze-dried) exhibit significantly lower maximum values.”

A correction has been made to Results, 3.2.1 Mechanical properties, Paragraph 2. This sentence previously stated:

“The non-post-treated sample GP1 showed a 4-fold higher mechanical strength compared to the GP4 freeze-dried sample, which also had no (self) setting/crosslinking time.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“The non-post-treated sample GP1 showed a 4-fold higher mechanical strength compared to the GP3 freeze-dried sample, which also had no (self) setting/crosslinking time”

A correction has been made to Discusson, 4.3 Mechanical properties, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:

“The reason for the low strength of sample GP4 is that this sample was frozen directly after printing to prevent the (self) setting/crosslinking reaction and to be able to compare it with the other samples.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“The reason for the low strength of sample GP3 is that this sample was frozen directly after printing to prevent the (self) setting/crosslinking reaction and to be able to compare it with the other samples.”

In the published article, there was an error. Group 12 was incorrectly used instead of Group 8.

A correction has been made to Discusson, 4.2 Surface condition. This sentence previously stated:

“Samples from group 12-1 show no signs of alginate coating in the SEM, as the solution is too thin to be detected in the ESEM. Group 12-2 and 12-3, on the other hand, both show an alginate coating, albeit unevenly.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“Samples from group 8-1 show no signs of alginate coating in the SEM, as the solution is too thin to be detected in the ESEM. Group 8-2 and 8-3, on the other hand, both show an alginate coating, albeit unevenly.”

The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Statements

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Summary

Keywords

3D printing, CPC, core-shell printing, alginate, self-setting, scaffold, bone regeneration

Citation

Schweiker C, Zankovic S, Baghnavi A, Velten D, Schmal H, Thomann R and Seidenstuecker M (2024) Corrigendum: Core-shell 3D printed biodegradable calcium phosphate cement – Alginate scaffolds for possible bone regeneration applications. Front. Drug Deliv. 4:1452132. doi: 10.3389/fddev.2024.1452132

Received

20 June 2024

Accepted

01 July 2024

Published

18 July 2024

Approved by

Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, Switzerland

Volume

4 - 2024

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Michael Seidenstuecker,

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics