ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2018
Three-Dimensional Bone Substitutes for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: Biological and Structural Characterization.
Article 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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Osteogenic Potential of a Three-Phase Strontium- and Silicon-Doped Tricalcium Silicate Cement on Dental Pulp Stem Cells: An In Vitro Study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Article
- A newly designed flexible hydrated-hardening bone graft (FHBG) promotes bone regeneration and in vivo calvarial repair.Biomedical journal · 2025Article
- Synthesis, physical characteristics, and biocompatibility test of chitosan-alginate-fucoidan scaffold as an alternative material for alveolar bone substitution.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Socket Preservation Technique Using Allogeneic and Xenogeneic Materials-A Preliminary Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Guided Tissue Regeneration of Periodontal Infrabony Defects with Frozen Radiation-Sterilized Allogenic Bone Graft Versus Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral: 5-Year Outcomes of RCT.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Granular osteoconductive biopolymer and predictive analysis of its physical property changes in maxillofacial surgery.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Fibronectin Functionalization: A Way to Enhance Dynamic Cell Culture on Alginate/Hydroxyapatite Scaffolds.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Developments in Alloplastic Bone Grafts and Barrier Membrane Biomaterials for Periodontal Guided Tissue and Bone Regeneration Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- In Vitro Handling Characteristics of a Particulate Bone Substitute for Ridge Preservation Procedures.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Computed Tomography as a Characterization Tool for Engineered Scaffolds with Biomedical Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Mechanical Enhancement of Cytocompatible 3D Scaffolds, Consisting of Hydroxyapatite Nanocrystals and Natural Biomolecules, Through Physical Cross-Linking.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Nanohydroxyapatite Powder in Combination with Polylactic Acid/Polyglycolic Acid Copolymer as Bone Replacement Graft in the Surgical Treatment of Intrabony Periodontal Defects: A Retrospective Case Series Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Hydroxyapatite Block Produced by Sponge Replica Method: Mechanical, Clinical and Histologic Observations.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Aspergillus fumigatus biofilm formation on different bone substitutes used in maxillary sinus augmentation: an in vitro analysis.International journal of implant dentistry · 2019Article
- Effect of Calcium Precursor on the Bioactivity and Biocompatibility of Sol-Gel-Derived Glasses.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBone substitutes, either from human (autografts and allografts) or animal (xenografts) sources, suffer from inherent drawbacks including limited availability or potential infectivity to name a few. In the last decade, synthetic biomaterials have emerged as a valid alternative for biomedical applications in the field of orthopedic and maxillofacial surgery. In particular, phosphate-based bone substitution materials have exhibited a high biocompatibility due to their chemical similitude with natural hydroxyapatite. Besides the nature of the biomaterial, its porous and interconnected architecture is essential for a correct osseointegration. This performance could be predicted with an extensive characterization of the biomaterial in vitro.
methodsIn this study, we compared the biological, chemical, and structural features of four different commercially available bone substitutes derived from an animal or a synthetic source. To this end, µ-CT and SEM were used to describe the biomaterials structure. Both FTIR and EDS analyses were carried out to provide a chemical characterization. The results obtained by these techniques were correlated with cell adhesion and proliferation of the osteosarcoma MG-63 human cell line cultured in vitro.
resultsThe findings reported in this paper indicate a significant influence of both the nature and the structure of the biomaterials in cell adhesion and proliferation, which ultimately could affect the clinical performance of the biomaterials.
conclusionsThe four commercially available bone substitutes investigated in this work significantly differed in terms of structural features, which ultimately influenced in vitro cell proliferation and may so affect the clinical performance of the biomaterials.
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.