ArticleWorld journal of stem cells2014
Ability of bone graft substitutes to support the osteoprogenitor cells: An in-vitro study.
Article in World journal of stem cells, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The role of peptides in bone healing and regeneration: a systematic review.BMC medicine · 2016Pooled it
- SpongostanMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Selected Nanomaterials' Application Enhanced with the Use of Stem Cells in Acceleration of Alveolar Bone Regeneration during Augmentation Process.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Bioactive hydrogels for bone regeneration.Bioactive materials · 2018Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare seven commercially available bone graft substitutes (BGS) in terms of these properties and without using any additional biological growth factors.
methodsPorcine osteoprogenitor cells were loaded on seven commercially available BGS and allowed to proliferate for one week followed by osteogenic induction. Staining for live/dead cells as well as scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was carried out to determine viability and cellular binding. Further outcome measures included alkaline phosphatase (ALP) assays with normalisation for DNA content to quantify osteogenic potential. Negative and positive control experiments were carried out in parallel to validate the results.
resultsLive/dead and SEM imaging showed higher viability and attachment with β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) than with other BGS (P < 0.05). The average ALP activity in nmol/mL (normalised value for DNA content in nmol/μg DNA) per sample was 657.58 (132.03) for β-TCP, 36.22 (unable to normalise) for calcium sulphate, 19.93 (11.39) for the Hydroxyapatite/Tricalcium Phosphate composite, 14.79 (18.53) for polygraft, 13.98 (8.15) for the highly porous β-Tricalcium Phosphate, 5.56 (10.0) for polymers, and 3.82 (3.8) for Hydroxyapatite.
conclusionUnder the above experimental conditions, β-TCP was able to maintain better the viability of osteoprogenitor cells and allow proliferation and differentiation (P < 0.05).
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.