ArticleBone reports2018
Effect of temporal onsets of mechanical loading on bone formation inside a tissue engineering scaffold combined with cell therapy.
Article in Bone reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mesenchymal stem cells' seeded amniotic membrane as a tissue-engineered dressing for wound healing.Drug delivery and translational research · 2022Article
- Application of subject-specific adaptive mechanical loading for bone healing in a mouse tail vertebral defect.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Exercise Promotes the Osteoinduction of HA/β-TCP Biomaterials via the Wnt Signaling Pathway.Metabolites · 2020Article
- Holistic Approach of Swiss Fetal Progenitor Cell Banking: Optimizing Safe and Sustainable Substrates for Regenerative Medicine and Biotechnology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several approaches to combine bone substitutes with biomolecules, cells or mechanical loading have been explored as an alternative to the limitation and risk-related bone auto- and allo-grafts. In particular, human bone progenitor cells seeded in porous poly(L-lactic acid)/tricalcium phosphate scaffolds have shown promising results. Furthermore, the application of mechanical loading has long been known to be a key player in the regulation of bone architecture and mechanical properties. Several in vivo studies have pointed out the importance of its temporal offset. When an early mechanical loading was applied a few days after scaffold implantation, it was ineffective on bone formation, whereas a delayed mechanical loading of several weeks was beneficial for bone tissue regeneration. No information is reported to date on the effectiveness of applying a mechanical loading in vivo on cell-seeded scaffold with respect to bone formation in a bone site. In our study, we were interested in human bone progenitor cells due to their low immunogenicity, sensitivity to mechanical loading and capacity to differentiate into osteogenic human bone progenitor cells. The latest capacity allowed us to test two different bone cell fates originating from the same cell type. Therefore, the general aim of this study was to assess the outcome on bone formation when human bone progenitor cells or pre-differentiated osteogenic human bone progenitor cells are combined with early and delayed mechanical loading inside bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Scaffolds without cells, named cell-free scaffold, were used as control. Surprisingly, we found that (1) the optimal solution for bone formation is the combination of cell-free scaffolds and delayed mechanical loading and that (2) the timing of the mechanical application is crucial and dependent on the cell type inside the implanted scaffolds.
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.