ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2002
Skin sensitization study of two hydroxypropyl methylcellulose components (Benecel and E4M) of an injectable bone substitute in guinea pigs.
Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of animal source on biocompatibility of bone xenografts: A comparative animal study.Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although initial results were promising for an injectable bone substitute (IBS) associating a hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) polymer vector (Benecel, 2 w/w %) with biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP), a sensitization reaction occurred probably related to the degree of polymer purity. In this context, Benecel and another HPMC, E4M were investigated in the present study. The expected composition of the polymers was confirmed by gas-liquid chromatography. Studies in the guinea pig showed that Benecel has strong sensitization capacity and E4M none. Benecel manifests impurities (30 times more than E4M) in individual fibers or rounded clumps that are apparently responsible for extreme sensitization. Purification by ultracentrifugation associated with 0.2 microm filtration can decrease sensitization capacity considerably, though with a slight loss of polymer concentration. Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analysis showed that the impurities were largely cellulose derivatives. However, extraction by organic solvent, followed by FTIR studies and micro-X analysis, detected an oily substance containing carbon and silicon associated with the cellulose derivatives. E4M, a polymer with no sensitization capacity, could replace Benecel and improve results with IBS.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.