ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2008
A comparison of different nanostructured biomaterials in subcutaneous tissue.
Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Calcium phosphate crystallization on titania in a flowing Kokubo solution.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2015Article
- Nanoporous silica nanoparticles as biomaterials: evaluation of different strategies for the functionalization with polysialic acid by step-by-step cytocompatibility testing.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2015Article
- Highly biocompatible behaviour and slow degradation of a LDH (layered double hydroxide)-coating on implants in the middle ear of rabbits.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2015Article
- Layered double hydroxides as efficient drug delivery system of ciprofloxacin in the middle ear: an animal study in rabbits.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2013Article
- Preparation and properties of a drug release membrane of mitomycin C with N-succinyl-hydroxyethyl chitosan.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The nanostructured surface of a material can improve its interaction with cells and its acceptance as an implant. We compared two novel biomaterials with different nanostructures: Bioverit II with a coating of nanoporous silica and chitosan-hydroxyapatite composite materials. Pure Bioverit II served as a control. Platelets of these materials were implanted for 28, 85 and 300 days in the subcutaneous tissue in the neck of 38 rabbits. After excising the specimens they were fixed, embedded in epoxy resin and analyzed histologically. All coated Bioverit II implants showed a thin capsule of connective tissue. After 300 days, these capsules tended to be thicker than in pure Bioverit II. No signs of inflammation were observed and the materials appeared unaltered by visual inspection. In case of chitosan-hydroxyapatite composites, massive capsules consisting of dense connective tissue were found, and the material showed signs of biodegradation in form of fissures and cavities. In conclusion, the nanoporous coating showed no obvious positive effect with regard to capsule formation; the chitosan-hydroxyapatite implants provoked a stronger interaction between cells and material. However, most Bioverit II implants showed no alterations optically, whereas chitosan-hydroxyapatite was partly degraded in all cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18197371What 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.