Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17277981›Full record

ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2007

Analysis of rheological properties of bone cements.

M K D Nicholas, M G J Waters, K M Holford, G Adusei

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Biomechanical characteristics of cement/gelatin mixture for prevention of cement leakage in vertebral augmentation.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2013
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Comparison of an experimental bone cement with a commercial control, Hydroset.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2009
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

M K D NicholasSchool of Engineering, Cardiff University, Queen's Buildings, The Parade, Cardiff CF24 3AA, UK. nicholasmk@cf.ac.uk
M G J Waters
K M Holford
G Adusei

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rheological properties of three commercially available bone cements, CMW 1, Palacos R and Cemex ISOPLASTIC, were investigated. Testing was undertaken at both 25 and 37 degrees C using an oscillating parallel plate rheometer. Results showed that the three high viscosity cements exhibited distinct differences in curing rate, with CMW 1 curing in 8.7 min, Palacos R and Cemex ISOPLASTIC in 13 min at 25 degrees C. Furthermore it was found that these curing rates were strongly temperature dependent, with curing rates being halved at 37 degrees C. By monitoring the change of viscosity with time over the entire curing process, the results showed that these cements had differing viscosity profiles and hence exhibit very different handling characteristics. However, all the cements reached the same maximum viscosity of 75 x 10(3) Pa s. Also, the change in elastic/viscous moduli and tan delta with time, show the cements changing from a viscous material to an elastic solid with a clear peak in the viscous modulus during the latter stages of curing. These results give valuable information about the changes in rheological properties for each commercial bone cement, especially during the final curing process.

Indexed as

ElasticityHardnessMaterials TestingPolymethyl MethacrylateTemperatureViscosityPolymethyl Methacrylate

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.