Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28217210›Full record

ArticleThe open orthopaedics journal2016

Nanotechnology for Stimulating Osteoprogenitor Differentiation.

A Ibrahim, N W Bulstrode, I S Whitaker, D M Eastwood, D Dunaway, P Ferretti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The open orthopaedics journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

6 authors.

A IbrahimDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children NHS Trust, London, UK; Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Section, UCL Great Ormond Street Hospital Institute of Child Health, University College London, UK; Reconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group, The Welsh Centre for Burns & Plastic Surgery, Swansea, UK; European Centre of Nano Health, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
N W BulstrodeDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children NHS Trust, London, UK; Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Section, UCL Great Ormond Street Hospital Institute of Child Health, University College London, UK.
I S WhitakerReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group, The Welsh Centre for Burns & Plastic Surgery, Swansea, UK; European Centre of Nano Health, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
D M EastwoodDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children NHS Trust, London, UK.
D DunawayDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children NHS Trust, London, UK; Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Section, UCL Great Ormond Street Hospital Institute of Child Health, University College London, UK.
P FerrettiStem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Section, UCL Great Ormond Street Hospital Institute of Child Health, University College London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBone is the second most transplanted tissue and due to its complex structure, metabolic demands and various functions, current reconstructive options such as foreign body implants and autologous tissue transfer are limited in their ability to restore defects. Most tissue engineering approaches target osteoinduction of osteoprogenitor cells by modifying the extracellular environment, using scaffolds or targeting intracellular signaling mechanisms or commonly a combination of all of these. Whilst there is no consensus as to what is the optimal cell type or approach, nanotechnology has been proposed as a powerful tool to manipulate the biomolecular and physical environment to direct osteoprogenitor cells to induce bone formation.

methodsReview of the published literature was undertaken to provide an overview of the use of nanotechnology to control osteoprogenitor differentiation and discuss the most recent developments, limitations and future directions.

resultsNanotechnology can be used to stimulate osteoprogenitor differentiation in a variety of way. We have principally classified research into nanotechnology for bone tissue engineering as generating biomimetic scaffolds, a vector to deliver genes or growth factors to cells or to alter the biophysical environment. A number of studies have shown promising results with regards to directing ostroprogenitor cell differentiation although limitations include a lack of

conclusionThere is increasing evidence that nanotechnology can be used to direct the fate of osteoprogenitor and promote bone formation. Further analysis of the functional properties and long term survival in animal models is required to assess the maturity and clinical potential of this.

Indexed as

NanofibreNanomaterialsNanoparticlesNanoscaffoldsNanotechnologyOsteogenic differentiationOsteoprogenitor cells

Identifiers

PMID28217210
PMCPMC5299582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.