ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2020
Recent Research Advances in Biologic Bone Graft Materials for Spine Surgery.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bone Fusion in the Cervical Spine: Where Are We Now?Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Application of Biologic and Synthetic Bone Grafts in Scoliosis Surgery: A Scoping Review of Emerging Technologies.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Bone Regeneration: A Review of Current Treatment Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Experimental study on salmon demineralized bone matrix loaded with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2:Open life sciences · 2025Article
- Use of ceramic synthetic allografts in spine surgery: a narrative review with early basic science and clinic data of novel nanosynthetic bone graft.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Review
- Efficacy and Outcome Measurement of iFactor/ABM/P-15 in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review.Global spine journal · 2024Review
- Targeted Delivery of Abaloparatide to Spinal Fusion Site Accelerates Fusion Process in Rats.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- 3D printing in spine care: A review of current applications.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2022Article
- Evolution of evidence in spinal surgery - past, present and future Scientometric analysis of randomized controlled trials in spinal surgery.World journal of orthopedics · 2022Article
- Therapeutics for enhancement of spinal fusion: A mini review.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2021Review
- [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 · 2021Review
- Bone induction and defect repair by true bone ceramics incorporated with rhBMP-2 and Sr.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2021Article
- Synthetic Bone Graft Materials in Spine Fusion: Current Evidence and Future Trends.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Surgeon experience influences patient characteristics and outcomes in spine deformity surgery.Spine deformity · 2021Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.