ReviewTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2015
Biological strategies for improved osseointegration and osteoinduction of porous metal orthopedic implants.
Review in Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 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
62 citing papers in PubMed, 181 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functionalizing biomaterials for osseointegration - microRNAs at the crossroads of bone formation and immune modulation.Bone & joint research · 2026Article
- Three-dimensional printed artificial vertebral body versus titanium mesh cage and nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 cage in anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion: a retrospective cohort study with a minimum 5-year follow-up.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Observational
- Use of locking humeral stems in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for complex proximal humerus fractures: a scoping review.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Review
- Innovations in Implant Osseointegration: Biomaterials, Surface Engineering, and Translational Strategies.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2026Review
- Three-Dimensional Printing of a Spinal Interbody: Design Principles, Biomaterials, and Translational Considerations.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Porous tantalum cage loaded with CGF promotes interbody fusion in a rat XLIF model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Magnesium-containing implants enhance bone healing: A mechanobiological perspective.Mechanobiology in medicine · 2025Review
- Photocatalytic cleaning effect of TiOBMC oral health · 2025Article
- Review
- Radio-clinical outcomes of a novel highly porous acetabular cup in primary THA in the Indian population: a follow-up study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
- Employing Polymer and Gel to Fabricate Scaffold-like Cancellous Orthopedic Screw: Polycaprolactone/Chitosan/Hydroxyapatite.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Bioprinted hydrogels in bone regeneration: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Finite element analysis of the biomechanical behavior of four osseointegrated prosthetic designs.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Calibration of Aseptic Loosening Simulation for Coatings Osteoinductive Effect.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Amorphous TiOBiomedical materials (Bristol, England) · 2024Article
- An Advanced Human Bone Tissue Culture Model for the Assessment of Implant Osteointegration In Vitro.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Vapor-induced phase-separation-enabled versatile direct ink writing.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Effects of Aging on Osteosynthesis at Bone-Implant Interfaces.Biomolecules · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The biological interface between an orthopedic implant and the surrounding host tissue may have a dramatic effect upon clinical outcome. Desired effects include bony ingrowth (osseointegration), stimulation of osteogenesis (osteoinduction), increased vascularization, and improved mechanical stability. Implant loosening, fibrous encapsulation, corrosion, infection, and inflammation, as well as physical mismatch may have deleterious clinical effects. This is particularly true of implants used in the reconstruction of load-bearing synovial joints such as the knee, hip, and the shoulder. The surfaces of orthopedic implants have evolved from solid-smooth to roughened-coarse and most recently, to porous in an effort to create a three-dimensional architecture for bone apposition and osseointegration. Total joint surgeries are increasingly performed in younger individuals with a longer life expectancy, and therefore, the postimplantation lifespan of devices must increase commensurately. This review discusses advancements in biomaterials science and cell-based therapies that may further improve orthopedic success rates. We focus on material and biological properties of orthopedic implants fabricated from porous metal and highlight some relevant developments in stem-cell research. We posit that the ideal primary and revision orthopedic load-bearing metal implants are highly porous and may be chemically modified to induce stem cell growth and osteogenic differentiation, while minimizing inflammation and infection. We conclude that integration of new biological, chemical, and mechanical methods is likely to yield more effective strategies to control and modify the implant-bone interface and thereby improve long-term clinical outcomes.
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.