Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30249051›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2018

Cellular Mechanisms Responsible for Success and Failure of Bone Substitute Materials.

Tim Rolvien, Mike Barbeck, Sabine Wenisch, Michael Amling, Matthias Krause

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Comparative analysis of theJournal of periodontal & implant science · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Biphasic bone substitutes coated with PLGA incorporating therapeutic ions SrFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [Synthetic bone replacement substances].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022
    Article
  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

5 authors.

Tim RolvienDepartment of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany. t.rolvien@uke.de.ORCID 0000-0003-1058-1307
Mike BarbeckDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany. mike.barbeck@uke.de.
Sabine WenischInstitute of Veterinary Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Justus Liebig University of Giessen, 35385 Giessen, Germany. Sabine.Wenisch@vetmed.uni-giessen.de.
Michael AmlingDepartment of Osteology and Biomechanics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, 22529 Hamburg, Germany. amling@uke.de.
Matthias KrauseDepartment of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany. m.krause@uke.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone grafts, i.e., autologous, allogeneic or synthetic bone substitute materials play an increasing role in reconstructive orthopedic surgery. While the indications and materials differ, it is important to understand the cellular mechanisms regarding their integration and remodeling, which are discussed in this review article. Osteoconductivity describes the new bone growth on the graft, while osteoinductivity represents the differentiation of undifferentiated cells into bone forming osteoblasts. The best case is that both mechanisms are accompanied by osteogenesis, i.e., bone modeling and remodeling of the graft material. Graft incorporation is mediated by a number of molecular pathways that signal the differentiation and activity of osteoblasts and osteoclasts (e.g., parathyroid hormone (PTH) and receptor activator of nuclear factor κβ ligand (RANKL), respectively). Direct contact of the graft and host bone as well as the presence of a mechanical load are a prerequisite for the successful function of bone grafts. Interestingly, while bone substitutes show good to excellent clinical outcomes, their histological incorporation has certain limits that are not yet completely understood. For instance, clinical studies have shown contrasting results regarding the complete or incomplete resorption and remodeling of allografts and synthetic grafts. In this context, a foreign body response can lead to complete material degradation via phagocytosis, however it may also cause a fibrotic reaction to the bone substitute. Finally, the success of bone graft incorporation is also limited by other factors, including the bone remodeling capacities of the host, the material itself (e.g., inadequate resorption, toxicity) and the surgical technique or preparation of the graft.

Indexed as

Bone RemodelingOsteogenesisAnimalsBone SubstitutesHumansBone Substitutesbiomaterialbone regenerationbone substituteosteoblastosteoclastremodeling

Identifiers

PMID30249051
PMCPMC6213546

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.