YUN-LIANG CHANGChia-Ying HsiehChao-Yuan YehCHIH-HAO CHANGLin, Feng-HueiFeng-HueiLin2025-05-222025-05-222024-12-30https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85216105735&origin=resultslisthttps://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/729658The authors wish to make a change to the published paper [1], as several mistakes were made. In the original publication, there were mistakes in Table 1 as published. The blood test data have been updated. The corrected Table 1 is presented below. In the original publication, there were mistakes in Table 2 as published. The blood test data have been updated. The corrected Table 2 is presented below. In the original publication, there were graphical mistakes in Figure 1 as published. The corrected Figure 1 is presented below. In the original publication, there were graphical mistakes in Figure 2 as published. The corrected Figure 2 is presented below. In the original publication, there were graphical mistakes in Figure 6 as published. The corrected Figure 6 is presented below. In the original publication, there were graphical mistakes in Figure 7 as published. The corrected Figure 7 is presented below. There was an error in the original publication. A correction has been made to the Results, subsection Blood Tests. The corrected part is presented below: Blood sampling was performed via cardiac puncture under anesthesia before sacrifice. Blood samples were sent for whole blood tests and biochemistry tests, as mentioned above. The results of blood tests were compared with the normal range in the literature (Charles River Laboratories, 1982). ANOVA tests showed no significant differences among all three groups, both in biochemistry and whole blood analyses. The means and standard deviations of the whole blood tests and biochemistry tests after 1 and 2 months are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. As shown, all values of the whole blood tests in all groups were in the normal range. For the biochemistry test, Ca and LDH values of all groups were in normal ranges. ALKP values in control group were slightly higher than the normal range for two-month dates, which may be related to the induced bone defects. In summary, the results of blood tests suggested that the Gel/HA–HAP–SDF-1 composite prepared in this study showed no obvious systemic toxicity. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This corrections have been approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.[SDGs]SDG3other10.3390/mi16010037