Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26273505›Full record

ReviewBone research2013

Bone Regeneration Based on Tissue Engineering Conceptions - A 21st Century Perspective.

Jan Henkel, Maria A Woodruff, Devakara R Epari, Roland Steck, Vaida Glatt, Ian C Dickinson, Peter F M Choong, Michael A Schuetz, Dietmar W Hutmacher

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Bone research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 307 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
307citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

307 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

247 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Jan HenkelInstitute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Maria A WoodruffInstitute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Devakara R EpariInstitute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Roland SteckInstitute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Vaida GlattInstitute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Ian C DickinsonOrthopaedic Oncology Service, Princess Alexandra Hospital , Brisbane, Australia.
Peter F M ChoongDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, St. Vincent's Hospital , Melbourne, Australia ; Department of Orthopaedics, St. Vincent's Hospital , Melbourne, Australia ; Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcoma Service, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre , Melbourne, Australia.
Michael A SchuetzInstitute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology , Brisbane, Queensland, Australia ; Orthopaedic and Trauma Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital , Brisbane, Australia.
Dietmar W HutmacherOrthopaedic Oncology Service, Princess Alexandra Hospital , Brisbane, Australia ; George W Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology , Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of Bone Tissue Engineering in the field of Regenerative Medicine has been the topic of substantial research over the past two decades. Technological advances have improved orthopaedic implants and surgical techniques for bone reconstruction. However, improvements in surgical techniques to reconstruct bone have been limited by the paucity of autologous materials available and donor site morbidity. Recent advances in the development of biomaterials have provided attractive alternatives to bone grafting expanding the surgical options for restoring the form and function of injured bone. Specifically, novel bioactive (second generation) biomaterials have been developed that are characterised by controlled action and reaction to the host tissue environment, whilst exhibiting controlled chemical breakdown and resorption with an ultimate replacement by regenerating tissue. Future generations of biomaterials (third generation) are designed to be not only osteoconductive but also osteoinductive, i.e. to stimulate regeneration of host tissues by combining tissue engineering and in situ tissue regeneration methods with a focus on novel applications. These techniques will lead to novel possibilities for tissue regeneration and repair. At present, tissue engineered constructs that may find future use as bone grafts for complex skeletal defects, whether from post-traumatic, degenerative, neoplastic or congenital/developmental "origin" require osseous reconstruction to ensure structural and functional integrity. Engineering functional bone using combinations of cells, scaffolds and bioactive factors is a promising strategy and a particular feature for future development in the area of hybrid materials which are able to exhibit suitable biomimetic and mechanical properties. This review will discuss the state of the art in this field and what we can expect from future generations of bone regeneration concepts.

Indexed as

additve manufacturingbone tissue engineeringclinical translationregenerative medicinescaffolds

Identifiers

PMID26273505
PMCPMC4472104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.