Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24768062›Full record

ArticleDental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials2014

Bone regeneration via novel macroporous CPC scaffolds in critical-sized cranial defects in rats.

Kangwon Lee, Michael D Weir, Evi Lippens, Manav Mehta, Ping Wang, Georg N Duda, Woo S Kim, David J Mooney, Hockin H K Xu

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A self-setting iPSMSC-alginate-calcium phosphate paste for bone tissue engineering.Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Tissue engineering for bone regeneration and osseointegration in the oral cavity.Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2015
    Review
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kangwon LeeSchool of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Michael D WeirBiomaterials & Tissue Engineering Division, Department of Endodontics, Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry, University of Maryland School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
Evi LippensSchool of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Manav MehtaSchool of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Ping WangBiomaterials & Tissue Engineering Division, Department of Endodontics, Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry, University of Maryland School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
Georg N DudaJulius Wolff Institute, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin and Berlin-Brandenburg Center for Regenerative Therapies, Berlin, Germany.
Woo S KimSchool of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
David J MooneySchool of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Hockin H K XuBiomaterials & Tissue Engineering Division, Department of Endodontics, Prosthodontics and Operative Dentistry, University of Maryland School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA; Center for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA; Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, MD 21250, USA. Electronic address: hxu@umaryland.edu.
Harvard University · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USBerlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

Injectable and Strong Nano-Apatite/Stem Cell Scaffolds for Bone RegenerationR01DE014190 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI XU, HUAKUN · 2003 to 2013
$3.4M
Human Embryonic Stem Cells in Calcium Phosphate Constructs for Bone RegenerationR21DE022625 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI XU, HUAKUN · 2012 to 2013
$413k
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE014190NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE14190NIDCR NIH HHS R21 DE022625
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCalcium phosphate cement (CPC) is promising for dental and craniofacial applications due to its ability to be injected or filled into complex-shaped bone defects and molded for esthetics, and its resorbability and replacement by new bone. The objective of this study was to investigate bone regeneration via novel macroporous CPC containing absorbable fibers, hydrogel microbeads and growth factors in critical-sized cranial defects in rats.

methodsMannitol porogen and alginate hydrogel microbeads were incorporated into CPC. Absorbable fibers were used to provide mechanical reinforcement to CPC scaffolds. Six CPC groups were tested in rats: (1) control CPC without macropores and microbeads; (2) macroporous CPC+large fiber; (3) macroporous CPC+large fiber+nanofiber; (4) same as (3), but with rhBMP2 in CPC matrix; (5) same as (3), but with rhBMP2 in CPC matrix+rhTGF-β1 in microbeads; (6) same as (3), but with rhBMP2 in CPC matrix+VEGF in microbeads. Rats were sacrificed at 4 and 24 weeks for histological and micro-CT analyses.

resultsThe macroporous CPC scaffolds containing porogen, absorbable fibers and hydrogel microbeads had mechanical properties similar to cancellous bone. At 4 weeks, the new bone area fraction (mean±sd; n=5) in CPC control group was the lowest at (14.8±3.3)%, and that of group 6 (rhBMP2+VEGF) was (31.0±13.8)% (p<0.05). At 24 weeks, group 4 (rhBMP2) had the most new bone of (38.8±15.6)%, higher than (12.7±5.3)% of CPC control (p<0.05). Micro-CT revealed nearly complete bridging of the critical-sized defects with new bone for several macroporous CPC groups, compared to much less new bone formation for CPC control. SIGNIFICANCE: Macroporous CPC scaffolds containing porogen, fibers and microbeads with growth factors were investigated in rat cranial defects for the first time. Macroporous CPCs had new bone up to 2-fold that of traditional CPC control at 4 weeks, and 3-fold that of traditional CPC at 24 weeks, and hence may be useful for dental, craniofacial and orthopedic applications.

Indexed as

Bone RegenerationCalcium PhosphatesDental CementsTissue ScaffoldsAnimalsMaterials TestingPorosityRatsSkullcalcium phosphateCalcium PhosphatesDental CementsBone regenerationCalcium phosphate cementCritical-sized cranial defectsGrowth factorsMacroporous scaffoldStrength and toughness

Identifiers

PMID24768062
PMCPMC4312701
OpenAlexW2062668732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.