ReviewTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2019
Reconsidering Osteoconduction in the Era of Additive Manufacturing.
Review in Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of chitosan/inorganic nanomaterial scaffolds on bone regeneration and related influencing factors in animal models: A systematic review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Pooled it
- Field-ridge structured bioactive Zn-based scaffold promotes bone regeneration via cellular mechanotransduction.Bioactive materials · 2027Article
- Identification of an Optimal Gyroid Microarchitecture of 3D-Printed Hydroxyapatite Bone Substitutes for Vertical Bone Augmentation and Osteoconduction.Biomolecules · 2026Article
- Sculpting the Future of Bone: The Evolution of Absorbable Materials in Orthopedics.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Review
- Article
- Potential of organ-on-a-chip in advancing synthetic extracellular matrix technology for bone tissue engineering in dentistry (Review).Biomedical reports · 2026Review
- Propolis-xenograft scaffolds: comparing delivery methods for tibial bone regeneration in rats.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
- The utility of 3D nanostructured polyglycolic acid fibers for novel bone regenerative medicine.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- An ingenious design from nature to accelerate the repair of long-bone critical defects: the longitudinal tubular transverse interconnection structure of deer antlers.Materials today. Bio · 2025Article
- Effect of Ti6Al4V Alloy Surface and Porosity on Bone Osseointegration: In Vivo Pilot Study in Rabbits.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Bioprinted hydrogels in bone regeneration: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- The rational design, biofunctionalization and biological properties of orthopedic porous titanium implants: a review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Comparison Between Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate Composite and Autogenous Bone Graft in Bone Regeneration Applications: Biochemical Mechanisms and Morphological Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Treatment of High-Grade Chronic Osteomyelitis and Nonunions with PerOssalJournal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Optimizing Filament-Based TCP Scaffold Design for Osteoconduction and Bone Augmentation: Insights from In Vivo Rabbit Models.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- TPMS Microarchitectures for Vertical Bone Augmentation and Osteoconduction: An In Vivo Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Patient-specific beta-tricalcium phosphate scaffold for customized alveolar ridge augmentation: a case report : Case Report: patient-specific β-TCP scaffold for alveolar ridge CBR.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024Article
- Experimental Verification of the Impact of the Contact Area between the Defect Site and the Scaffold on Bone Regeneration Efficacy.Polymers · 2024Article
- Platelet-rich fibrin as an autologous biomaterial for bone regeneration: mechanisms, applications, optimization.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone regeneration procedures in clinics and bone tissue engineering stand on three pillars: osteoconduction, osteoinduction, and stem cells. In the last two decades, the focus in this field has been on osteoinduction, which is realized by the use of bone morphogenetic proteins and the application of mesenchymal stem cells to treat bone defects. However, osteoconduction was reduced to a surface phenomenon because the supposedly ideal pore size of osteoconductive scaffolds was identified in the 1990s as 0.3-0.5 mm in diameter, forcing bone formation to occur predominantly on the surface. Meanwhile, additive manufacturing has evolved as a new tool to realize designed microarchitectures in bone substitutes, thereby enabling us to study osteoconduction as a true three-dimensional phenomenon. Moreover, by additive manufacturing, wide-open porous scaffolds can be produced in which bone formation occurs distant to the surface at a superior bony defect-bridging rate enabled by highly osteoconductive pores 1.2 mm in diameter. This review provides a historical overview and an updated definition of osteoconduction and related terms. In addition, it shows how additive manufacturing can be instrumental in studying and optimizing osteoconduction of bone substitutes, and provides novel optimized features and boundaries of osteoconductive microarchitectures. Impact Statement This review updates the definition of osteoconduction and draws clear lines to discriminate between osteoconduction, osseointegration, and osteoinduction. Moreover, additively manufactured libraries of scaffolds revealed that: osteoconduction is more a three-dimensional than a surface phenomenon; microarchitecture dictates defect bridging, which is the measure for osteoconduction; pore diameter or the diagonal of lattice microarchitectures of osteoconductive bone substitutes should be ∼1.2 mm.
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.