ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2019
Comparative Efficacy of Commonly Available Human Bone Graft Substitutes as Tested for Posterolateral Fusion in an Athymic Rat Model.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Universal Hydrogel Carrier Enhances Bone Graft Success: Preclinical and Clinical Evaluation.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Injectable bioactive poly(propylene fumarate) and polycaprolactone based click chemistry bone cement for spinal fusion in rabbits.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2024Article
- An Up-to-Date Review of Materials Science Advances in Bone Grafting for Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Developments in Alloplastic Bone Grafts and Barrier Membrane Biomaterials for Periodontal Guided Tissue and Bone Regeneration Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Variability of BMP-2 content in DBM products derived from different long bone.Cell and tissue banking · 2024Article
- From Basic Science to Clinical Practice: A Review of Current Periodontal/Mucogingival Regenerative Biomaterials.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Comparison of demineralized bone matrix with different cycling crushing times in posterolateral fusion model of athymic rats.Cell and tissue banking · 2023Article
- Bone Grafts in Dental Medicine: An Overview of Autografts, Allografts and Synthetic Materials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Progress in Gelatin as Biomaterial for Tissue Engineering.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Allografts and Spinal Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- The temporal and spatial expression of sclerostin and Wnt signaling factors during the maturation of posterolateral lumbar spine fusions.JOR spine · 2021Article
- Article
- The impact of demineralized bone matrix characteristics on pseudarthrosis and surgical outcomes after posterolateral lumbar decompression and fusion.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInsufficient data exist on bone graft substitute materials efficacy; two thirds lack any clinical data.1,2 This prospective animal study identified efficacy differences among commercially available materials of several classes.
methodsHistorically validated muscle pouch osteoinduction study (OIS) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) were performed in an athymic rat model. Grafting material products implanted were demineralized bone matrix (DBM)-based allografts (Accell EVO3, DBX Mix, DBX Strip, Grafton Crunch, Grafton Flex, Grafton Matrix, Grafton Putty, Magnifuse, and Progenix Plus), allografts (OsteoSponge, MinerOss), cellular allograft (Osteocel Plus), ceramics (Mozaik Strip), or activated ceramics (Actifuse ABX Putty, Vitoss BA). After 4 weeks, OIS specimens were evaluated ex vivo by histologic osteoinductivity. After 8 weeks, PLF ex vivo specimens were evaluated for fusion by manual palpation (F
resultsOIS: No materials exhibited a rejection reaction on histology. All DBM-based materials exhibited osteoinductive potential as new bone formation at > 88% of implanted sites. One plain allograft (OsteoSponge) formed bone at 25% of sites. No bone formed for one ceramic (Mozaik Strip), three activated ceramics (Actifuse ABX Putty), or one cellular allograft, regardless of human bone marrow aspirate (hBMA) when added. PLF: Among the 10 DBMs, 6 had F
conclusionsEight DBM-based materials (Accell EVO3, DBX Mix, DBX Strip, Grafton Crunch, Grafton Flex, Grafton Matrix, Grafton Putty, Magnifuse) demonstrated excellent (> 90% F CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When selecting DBMs, clinicians must be cognizant of variability in DBM efficacy by product and lot. While theoretically osteoinductive, cellular allograft and activated ceramics yielded poor in vivo efficacy. Whole allograft and ceramics may provide osteoconductive scaffolding for mixed-material grafting; however, surgeons should be cautious in using them alone. Direct clinical data are needed to establish efficacy for any bone graft substitute.
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.