Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31923253›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

The effect of strontium and silicon substituted hydroxyapatite electrochemical coatings on bone ingrowth and osseointegration of selective laser sintered porous metal implants.

Aadil Mumith, Vee San Cheong, Paul Fromme, Melanie J Coathup, Gordon W Blunn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Harnessing strontium in regenerative dentistry: progress and perspectives.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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.

Aadil MumithInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, University College London, Royal National Orthopaedics Hospital, Stanmore, England, United Kingdom.
Vee San CheongInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, University College London, Royal National Orthopaedics Hospital, Stanmore, England, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4292-8619
Paul FrommeDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University College London, London, England, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5992-2526
Melanie J CoathupInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, University College London, Royal National Orthopaedics Hospital, Stanmore, England, United Kingdom.
Gordon W BlunnInstitute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, University College London, Royal National Orthopaedics Hospital, Stanmore, England, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Additive manufactured, porous bone implants have the potential to improve osseointegration and reduce failure rates of orthopaedic devices. Substantially porous implants are increasingly used in a number of orthopaedic applications. HA plasma spraying-a line of sight process-cannot coat the inner surfaces of substantially porous structures, whereas electrochemical deposition of calcium phosphate can fully coat the inner surfaces of porous implants for improved bioactivity, but the osseous response of different types of hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings with ionic substitutions has not been evaluated for implants in the same in vivo model. In this study, laser sintered Ti6Al4V implants with pore sizes of Ø 700 μm and Ø 1500 μm were electrochemically coated with HA, silicon-substituted HA (SiHA), and strontium-substituted HA (SrHA), and implanted in ovine femoral condylar defects. Implants were retrieved after 6 weeks and histological and histomorphometric evaluation were compared to electrochemically coated implants with uncoated and HA plasma sprayed controls. The HA, SiHA and SrHA coatings had Ca:P, Ca:(P+Si) and (Ca+Sr):P ratios of 1.53, 1.14 and 1.32 respectively. Electrochemically coated implants significantly promoted bone attachment to the implant surfaces of the inner pores and displayed improved osseointegration compared to uncoated scaffolds for both pore sizes (p<0.001), whereas bone ingrowth was restricted to the surface for HA plasma coated or uncoated implants. Electrochemically coated HA implants achieved the highest osseointegration, followed by SrHA coated implants, and both coatings exhibited significantly more bone growth than plasma sprayed groups (p≤0.01 for all 4 cases). SiHA had significantly more osseointegration when compared against the uncoated control, but no significant difference compared with other coatings. There was no significant difference in ingrowth or osseointegration between pore sizes, and the bone-implant-contact was significantly higher in the electrochemical HA than in SiHA or SrHA. These results suggest that osseointegration is insensitive to pore size, whereas surface modification through the presence of an osteoconductive coating plays an important role in improving osseointegration, which may be critically important for extensively porous implants.

Indexed as

Implants, ExperimentalPorosityAlloysAnimalsCoated Materials, BiocompatibleDurapatiteFemurLasersMaterials TestingOrthopedic EquipmentOsseointegrationSheepSiliconStrontiumSurface PropertiesTitaniumAlloysCoated Materials, BiocompatibleDurapatiteSiliconStrontiumTitaniumtitanium alloy (TiAl6V4)

Identifiers

PMID31923253
PMCPMC6953817

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.