Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29271933›Full record

ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2017

The Components of Bone and What They Can Teach Us about Regeneration.

Bach Quang Le, Victor Nurcombe, Simon McKenzie Cool, Clemens A van Blitterswijk, Jan de Boer, Vanessa Lydia Simone LaPointe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Research progress of biomimetic materials in oral medicine.Journal of biological engineering · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Age Related Osteoporosis: Targeting Cellular Senescence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Bach Quang LeInstitute of Medical Biology, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), 8A Biomedical Grove, #6-06 Immunos, Singapore 138648, Singapore. lequangbach@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1001-4751
Victor NurcombeInstitute of Medical Biology, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), 8A Biomedical Grove, #6-06 Immunos, Singapore 138648, Singapore. victor.nurcombe@imb.a-star.edu.sg.
Simon McKenzie CoolInstitute of Medical Biology, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), 8A Biomedical Grove, #6-06 Immunos, Singapore 138648, Singapore. simon.cool@imb.a-star.edu.sg.
Clemens A van BlitterswijkDepartment of Complex Tissue Regeneration, MERLN Institute for Technology-Inspired Regenerative Medicine, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. c.vanblitterswijk@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Jan de BoerDepartment of Cell Biology-Inspired Tissue Engineering, MERLN Institute for Technology-Inspired Regenerative Medicine, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. jan.deboer@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Vanessa Lydia Simone LaPointeDepartment of Complex Tissue Regeneration, MERLN Institute for Technology-Inspired Regenerative Medicine, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. v.lapointe@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-0887-7443

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The problem of bone regeneration has engaged both physicians and scientists since the beginning of medicine. Not only can bone heal itself following most injuries, but when it does, the regenerated tissue is often indistinguishable from healthy bone. Problems arise, however, when bone does not heal properly, or when new tissue is needed, such as when two vertebrae are required to fuse to stabilize adjacent spine segments. Despite centuries of research, such procedures still require improved therapeutic methods to be devised. Autologous bone harvesting and grafting is currently still the accepted benchmark, despite drawbacks for clinicians and patients that include limited amounts, donor site morbidity, and variable quality. The necessity for an alternative to this "gold standard" has given rise to a bone-graft and substitute industry, with its central conundrum: what is the best way to regenerate bone? In this review, we dissect bone anatomy to summarize our current understanding of its constituents. We then look at how various components have been employed to improve bone regeneration. Evolving strategies for bone regeneration are then considered.

Indexed as

bone anatomybone healingbone tissue engineeringfracture healing

Identifiers

PMID29271933
PMCPMC5793512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.