ReviewDer Unfallchirurg2012
[Bone substitute. Transplants and replacement materials--an update].
Review in Der Unfallchirurg, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Osteointegration of porous absorbable bone substitutes: A systematic review of the literature.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2017Pooled it
- A novel magnesium phosphate cement paste enables effective augmentation of pedicle screws in osteoporotic bone.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Comparison of degradation behavior and osseointegration of 3D powder-printed calcium magnesium phosphate cement scaffolds with alkaline or acid post-treatment.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Characterization of Naturally Occurring Bioactive Factor Mixtures for Bone Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- [Prefabrication of vascularized facial bones].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2015Review
- [Non-unions. From diagnosis to healing].Der Unfallchirurg · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the special characteristics, autologous bone for bone grafting remains the gold standard for defect filling. Besides allogenic bone transplants, as an alternative a set of bone substitutes has been established. An overview of the bone substitutes presently on the market is almost lost due to the abundance of products. The present paper gives a review of the materials available on the market. Different classification systems regarding origin, vitality, biological priority and chemical composition are described as well as the individual materials including the advantages and disadvantages. Finally, a description of tissue engineering and gene therapy gives a view of future prospective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22821191What 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.