ArticleJournal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine2018
Testing a novel nanofibre scaffold for utility in bone tissue regeneration.
Article in Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, 2018. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chronic Leg Ulcers: Are Tissue Engineering and Biomaterials Science the Solution?Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- New forms of electrospun nanofiber materials for biomedical applications.Journal of materials chemistry. B · 2020Review
- rhBMP2 alone does not induce macrophage polarization towards an increased inflammatory response.Molecular immunology · 2020Article
- Sub-clinical dose of bone morphogenetic protein-2 does not precipitate rampant, sustained inflammatory response in bone wound healing.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2019Article
- Optimizing bone wound healing using BMP2 with absorbable collagen sponge and Talymed nanofiber scaffold.Journal of translational medicine · 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Many variables serve to alter the process of bone remodelling and diminish regeneration including the size and nature of the wound bed and health status of the individual. To overcome these inhibitory factors, tissue-engineered osteoconductive scaffolds paired with various growth factors have been utilized clinically. However, many limitations still remain, for example, bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2) can lead to rampant inflammation, ectopic bone formation, and graft failure. Here, we studied the ability for a nanofiber scaffold (Talymed) to accelerate BMP2 growth factor-induced bone healing compared with the traditional absorbable collagen sponge (ACS) delivery system. One hundred fifty-five adult wild type mice were arranged in 16 groups by time, 4 and 8 weeks, and treatment, ACS or Talymed, loaded with control, low, medium, or high dosages of BMP2. Skulls were subjected to microCT, biomechanical, and histological analysis to assess bone regeneration. The use of Talymed within the defect site was found to decrease the bone volume, bone formation rate, and alkaline phosphatase activity compared with ACS/BMP2 combinations. Interestingly, though Talymed regenerated less bone, the regenerate was found to have a greater hardness value than that of bone within the ACS groups. However, the difference in bone hardness between scaffolds was not detectable by 8 weeks. Based on these results, we found that the nanofiber scaffold generated a better quality of bone regenerate at 4 weeks but, due to the lack of overall bone formation and the inhibition of normal remodelling processes, was not as efficacious as the current clinical standard ACS/BMP2 therapy.
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.