ArticleBone & joint research2012
Coating of titanium with hydroxyapatite leads to decreased bone formation: A study in rabbits.
Article in Bone & joint research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of Hydroxyapatite Coating for the Prevention of Bone Mineral Density Loss and Bone Metabolism after Total Hip Arthroplasty: Assessment UsingBioMed research international · 2020Trial
- No medium-term advantage of electrochemical deposition of hydroxyapatite in cementless femoral stems. 5-year RSA and DXA results from a randomized controlled trial.Acta orthopaedica · 2016Trial
- 3D-Bioprinted Osteoblast-Laden Nanocomposite Hydrogel Constructs with Induced Microenvironments Promote Cell Viability, Differentiation, and Osteogenesis both In Vitro and In Vivo.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2018Article
- A Review on Bone Mineral Density Loss in Total Knee Replacements Leading to Increased Fracture Risk.Clinical reviews in bone and mineral metabolism · 2017Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAn experimental rabbit model was used to test the null hypothesis, that there is no difference in new bone formation around uncoated titanium discs compared with coated titanium discs when implanted into the muscles of rabbits.
methodsA total of three titanium discs with different surface and coating (1, porous coating; 2, porous coating + Bonemaster (Biomet); and 3, porous coating + plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite) were implanted in 12 female rabbits. Six animals were killed after six weeks and the remaining six were killed after 12 weeks. The implants with surrounding tissues were embedded in methyl methacrylate and grinded sections were stained with Masson-Goldners trichrome and examined by light microscopy of coded sections.
resultsSmall amounts of bone were observed scattered along the surface of five of the 12 implants coated with porous titanium, and around one out of 12 porous coated surfaces with Bonemaster. No bone formation could be detected around porous coated implants with plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite.
conclusionPorous titanium coating is to some degree osteoinductive in muscles.
Indexed as
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.