ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2017
Porotic paradox: distribution of cortical bone pore sizes at nano- and micro-levels in healthy vs. fragile human bone.
Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plant Tissue Parenchyma and Vascular Bundles Selectively Regulate Stem Cell Mechanosensing and Differentiation.Cellular and molecular bioengineering · 2022Article
- Modeling Frequency Dependent Ultrasound Attenuation in Cortical Bone: Solving Direct and Inverse Problems.IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium : [proceedings]. IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium · 2020Article
- Decoupling the effects of nanopore size and surface roughness on the attachment, spreading and differentiation of bone marrow-derived stem cells.Biomaterials · 2020Article
- Constricted migration modulates stem cell differentiation.Molecular biology of the cell · 2019Article
- Two step porosification of biomimetic thin-film hydroxyapatite/alpha-tri calcium phosphate coatings by pulsed electron beam irradiation.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone is a remarkable biological nanocomposite material showing peculiar hierarchical organization from smaller (nano, micro) to larger (macro) length scales. Increased material porosity is considered as the main feature of fragile bone at larger length-scales. However, there is a shortage of quantitative information on bone porosity at smaller length-scales, as well as on the distribution of pore sizes in healthy vs. fragile bone. Therefore, here we investigated how healthy and fragile bones differ in pore volume and pore size distribution patterns, considering a wide range of mostly neglected pore sizes from nano to micron-length scales (7.5 to 15000 nm). Cortical bone specimens from four young healthy women (age: 35 ± 6 years) and five women with bone fracture (age: 82 ± 5 years) were analyzed by mercury porosimetry. Our findings showed that, surprisingly, fragile bone demonstrated lower pore volume at the measured scales. Furtnermore, pore size distribution showed differential patterns between healthy and fragile bones, where healthy bone showed especially high proportion of pores between 200 and 15000 nm. Therefore, although fragile bones are known for increased porosity at macroscopic level and level of tens or hundreds of microns as firmly established in the literature, our study with a unique assessment range of nano-to micron-sized pores reveal that osteoporosis does not imply increased porosity at all length scales. Our thorough assessment of bone porosity reveals a specific distribution of porosities at smaller length-scales and contributes to proper understanding of bone structure which is important for designing new biomimetic bone substitute materials.
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.