Table 4 Summary comparsion.
Study | Key findings & strengths | Main limitations | Our scaffold improvements | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Hwang et al | Crater-like 2D mats (crater-area porosity 46–52%, superficial infiltration) | Low porosity, poor 3D structure, missing mechanical/cell data | > 97% volumetric porosity; true 3D nanofibrous structure; fully quantified | |
Bakhtiary et al | SPION-laden wet-spun scaffolds; improved PBS uptake and neural differentiation | No volumetric porosity or kPa mechanical data | Measured porosity, hydration, kPa-range mechanics, and long-term viability | |
Du et al | Enhanced strength, hydrophilicity, ROS scavenging, tissue repair in 2D mats | 2D only; no 3D porosity or neural mechanics data | 3D structure, > 97% porosity, hydration control, kPa mechanics, 3D integration | |
Perez–Puyana et al | Fiber alignment effects on 2D mechanics | Structural discontinuities, no porosity control, limited infiltration | Open 3D network, high porosity, mechanically tuned, improved cellular use |