Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32323248›Full record

ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2020

Recent Research Advances in Biologic Bone Graft Materials for Spine Surgery.

Mark A Plantz, Wellington K Hsu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Bone Fusion in the Cervical Spine: Where Are We Now?Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 3D printing in spine care: A review of current applications.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Therapeutics for enhancement of spinal fusion: A mini review.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2021
    Review
  11. [Local administration of parathyroid hormone and parathyroid hormone-related peptides for bone tissue engineering].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2021
    Review
  12. Bone induction and defect repair by true bone ceramics incorporated with rhBMP-2 and Sr.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

2 authors.

Mark A PlantzDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University - Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 N. St. Clair St. #1350, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
Wellington K HsuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University - Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 N. St. Clair St. #1350, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewBiologic bone graft materials continue to be an important component of various spinal fusion procedures. Given the known risks and morbidity of harvesting iliac crest bone graft, the historical gold standard for spinal fusion, these biologic materials serve the purpose of improving both the efficacy and safety of spinal fusion procedures. Recent advances in biomedical and materials sciences have enabled the design of many novel materials that have shown promise as effective bone graft materials. This review will discuss current research pertaining to several of these materials, including functionalized peptide amphiphiles and other nanocomposites, novel demineralized bone matrix applications, 3D-printed materials, and Hyperelastic Bone®, among others. RECENT

findingsRecent investigation has demonstrated that novel technologies, including nanotechnology and 3D printing, can be used to produce biomaterials with significant osteogenic potential. Notably, peptide amphiphile nanomaterials functionalized to bind BMP-2 have demonstrated significant bone regenerative capacity in a pre-clinical rodent posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) model. Additionally, 3D-printed Hyperelastic Bone® has demonstrated promising bone regenerative capacity in several in vivo animal models. Composite materials such as TrioMatrix® (demineralized bone matrix, hydroxyapatite, and nanofiber-based collagen scaffold) have also demonstrated significant osteogenic potential in both in vitro and in vivo settings. Advances in materials science and engineering have allowed for the design and implementation of several novel biologic materials, including nanocomposites, 3D-printed materials, and various biologic composites. These materials provide significant bone regenerative capacity and have the potential to be alternatives to other bone graft materials, such as autograft and BMP-2, which have known complications.

Indexed as

BiologicsBiomaterialsBone regenerationNanotechnologySpine fusion

Identifiers

PMID32323248
PMCPMC7251006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.