Tissue Engineering (bone)
Discussion should interpret and explore the significance of the results of the work, not repeat them.
General Structure The key findings of the study should be emphasized first. The implications of the study to the wider field should be discussed and, in particular,
how the results might compare to other studies in the literature. The discussion should provide explanations of any unexpected results and describe any limitations of
the experiment or analysis. If any problems were encountered, identify how methods could be altered to provide more definitive results or what future experiments might
be carried out to further the understanding of the area.
Discussion for coursework should address the following First paragraph is usually a brief summary of the key findings of the study (should closely resemble the
objectives set out in the introduction) and perhaps implications to the wider field Interpretation of the results Were there differences between different groups? What
were the reasons for differences? Do results agree with other literature? Limitations Limitations of the study carried out Sources of error/anomalous data How could
the study be improved or what future research could be carried out to further?
You will talk about how the scaffolds with the higher crosslink density S2 have a larger solid and scaffold modulus, and this result was expected. You might need to
reference a paper here which talk about how crosslink density related to solid and scaffold modulus.
You can say how even though both sets of scaffold had different scaffold densities, it did not have any effect on cell viability. This was something we mightn’t have
expected. Again you might to reference a paper on cell viabilty and crosslink densities.
You can then talk about the limitations of the study, about how the sample size for each crosslink density was low. And how if it was higher, we might have gotten a
different result. We can also say that the cell density that was seeded on each scaffold was low, and this could have had an effect on the cell viability results.
You can also mention that we tried to get a reading from the 1:40 fluorescence reading, but they were inconclusive and therefore not included. If these 1:40 dilutions
were studied in the future, they might show interesting results.
As much as possible, try to refer back to the literature. Also if you made any points in the introduction that you haven’t talked about in the discussion, try to talk
about how the results we got may have an effect on those points.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂