ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2018
Modulation of Osteoclast Interactions with Orthopaedic Biomaterials.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Topography-based implants for bone regeneration: Design, biological mechanism, and therapeutics.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Strontium-Doped Marine Collagen Membranes Promote Osteogenesis by Inducing M2 Macrophage Polarization.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2025Article
- Electrospun Poly(L-lactide-co-ε-caprolactone) Nanofibers with Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles Mimic Cellular Interplay in Bone Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Pharmacological impacts of tanshinone on osteogenesis and osteoclastogenesis: a review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Review
- Magnesium-Titanium Alloys: A Promising Solution for Biodegradable Biomedical Implants.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Pre-implantation teriparatide administration improves initial implant stability and accelerates the osseointegration process in osteoporotic rats.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024Article
- Antimicrobial peptide GL13K-Modified titanium in the epigenetic regulation of osteoclast differentiation via H3K27me3.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- The Effect of PCL Addition on 3D-Printable PLA/HA Composite Filaments for the Treatment of Bone Defects.Polymers · 2022Article
- Rare earth smart nanomaterials for bone tissue engineering and implantology: Advances, challenges, and prospects.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2022Review
- Strontium Functionalized in Biomaterials for Bone Tissue Engineering: A Prominent Role in Osteoimmunomodulation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- The State of the Art and Prospects for Osteoimmunomodulatory Biomaterials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- In Vitro Macrophage Immunomodulation by Poly(ε-caprolactone) Based-Coated AZ31 Mg Alloy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Review on material parameters to enhance bone cell function in vitro and in vivo.Biochemical Society transactions · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biomaterial integration in bone depends on bone remodelling at the bone-implant interface. Optimal balance of bone resorption by osteoclasts and bone deposition by osteoblasts is crucial for successful implantation, especially in orthopaedic surgery. Most studies examined osteoblast differentiation on biomaterials, yet few research has been conducted to explore the effect of different orthopaedic implants on osteoclast development. This review covers, in detail, the biology of osteoclasts, in vitro models of osteoclasts, and modulation of osteoclast activity by different implant surfaces, bio-ceramics, and polymers. Studies show that surface topography influence osteoclastogenesis. For instance, metal implants with rough surfaces enhanced osteoclast activity, while smooth surfaces resulted in poor osteoclast differentiation. In addition, surface modification of implants with anti-osteoporotic drug further decreased osteoclast activity. In bioceramics, osteoclast development depended on different chemical compositions. Strontium-incorporated bioceramics decreased osteoclast development, whereas higher concentrations of silica enhanced osteoclast activity. Differences between natural and synthetic polymers also modulated osteoclastogenesis. Physiochemical properties of implants affect osteoclast activity. Hence, understanding osteoclast biology and its response to the natural microarchitecture of bone are indispensable to design suitable implant interfaces and scaffolds, which will stimulate osteoclasts in ways similar to that of native bone.
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.