Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30058251›Full record

ArticleJournal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine2018

Testing a novel nanofibre scaffold for utility in bone tissue regeneration.

R Nicole Howie, Emily Durham, Brayden Oakes, Zachary Grey, Jason Smith, Phil Campbell, Amanda LaRue, Martin Steed, Robin Muise-Helmericks, James Cray

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

R Nicole HowieDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Emily DurhamDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Brayden OakesCollege of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Zachary GreyDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Jason SmithEngineering Reseacher Accelerated and Integrated Innovation Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Phil CampbellInstitute for Complex Engineering Systems, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Amanda LaRueDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, and Ralph H. Johnston Department of Veterans Affairs, Charleston, South Carolina.
Martin SteedDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Robin Muise-HelmericksDepartment of Regenerative Medicine and Cell Biology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
James CrayDivision of Anatomy, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.ORCID 0000-0002-8512-7005
Medical University of South Carolina · USEngineering Systems (United States) · USSoftware Engineering Institute · USThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

T-COHR: Training in Craniofacial and Oral Health ResearchT32DE017551 · NIDCR · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI YAO, HAI · 2006 to 2025
$10.3M
South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR)UL1TR000062 · NCATS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T. · 2012 to 2014
$9.4M
Pilot and Feasibility Project ProgramP30GM103331 · NIGMS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI WESTWATER, CAROLINE · 2012 to 2016
$5.2M
The effects of pharmacological exposures on cranial suture stem cellsF31DE026684 · NIDCR · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI DURHAM, EMILY LENSIE · 2017 to 2018
$90k
Potential of Hematopoietic Stem Cell-Based Therapies for Complicated FracturesI01BX000333 · VA · RALPH H JOHNSON VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI LARUE, AMANDA C. · 2009 to 2022
–
AO Foundation S-16-108CAO Foundation S-16-108C [JC]BLRD VA I01 BX000333Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc.MedtronicNCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000062NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR000062NIDCR NIH HHS 5T32DE017551NIDCR NIH HHS F31 DE026684NIDCR NIH HHS F31DE026684NIDCR NIH HHS T32 DE017551NIGMS NIH HHS P30 GM103331NIGMS NIH HHS P30GM103331
6 · The paper itself

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

AnimalsBone Morphogenetic Protein 2Bone RegenerationBone ResorptionCollagenFemaleMaleMice, Inbred C57BLNanofibersOsteoclastsOsteogenesisTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsBone Morphogenetic Protein 2Collagenabsorbable collagen spongeBMP2bone regenerationnanofiberTalymedtissue-engineered scaffold

Identifiers

PMID30058251
PMCPMC6175654
OpenAlexW2886498998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.