ReviewBiomolecules2020
Pre-Clinical Evaluation of Biological Bone Substitute Materials for Application in Highly Loaded Skeletal Sites.
Review in Biomolecules, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Capturing the Multiscale Nature of Bone Behavior: Classical, Data-Driven and Hybrid Techniques.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Synergistic integration of biomaterials in orthopedic implantation for infection preventing and tissue engineering.Regenerative biomaterials · 2026Review
- 3D-Printed Multidimensional Bionic Mg-MC/PLGA Composite for Tailored Repair of Segmental Long Bone Defects.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Chitosan-Modified Bone Regeneration Materials: A Systematic Review.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Analysis of Biomechanical Characteristics of Bone Tissues Using a Bayesian Neural Network: A Narrative Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Gelatin/Poly (Lactic-Co-Glycolic Acid)/Attapulgite Composite Scaffold Equipped with Teriparatide Microspheres for Osteogenesis in vitro and in vivo.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Article
- Histomorphometric Assessment of Non-Decalcified Plastic-Embedded Specimens for Evaluation of Bone Regeneration Using Bone Substitute Materials-A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Future of Bone Repair: Emerging Technologies and Biomaterials in Bone Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Challenges and Pitfalls of Research Designs Involving Magnesium-Based Biomaterials: An Overview.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Microgravity's effects on miRNA-mRNA regulatory networks in a mouse model of segmental bone defects.PloS one · 2024Article
- The role of collagen and crystallinity in the physicochemical properties of naturally derived bone grafts.Regenerative biomaterials · 2024Article
- Evaluation of stresses on mandible bone and prosthetic parts in fixed prosthesis by utilizing CFR-PEEK, PEKK and PEEK frameworks.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Evaluation of stress and strain on mandible caused using "All-on-Four" system from PEEK in hybrid prosthesis: finite-element analysis.Odontology · 2023Article
- Optimal regenerative repair of large segmental bone defect in a goat model with osteoinductive calcium phosphate bioceramic implants.Bioactive materials · 2022Article
- Mesenchymal stem cells delivered via a bioactive disordered peptide-hydrogel platform modulate early inflammation and enhance skeletal repair in a polytrauma model.Journal of tissue engineeringArticle
- Three-dimensionally printed mesoporous bioactive glass for craniomaxillofacial bone regeneration: Material evolution, functional mechanisms, and clinical translation.Cell transplantationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The development of bone substitute materials (BSMs) intended for load-bearing bone defects is highly complicated, as biological and mechanical requirements are often contradictory. In recent years, biological BSMs have been developed which allow for a more efficient integration of the material with the surrounding osseous environment and, hence, a higher mechanical stability of the treated defect. However, while these materials are promising, they are still far from ideal. Consequently, extensive preclinical experimentation is still required. The current review provides a comprehensive overview of biomechanical considerations relevant for the design of biological BSMs. Further, the preclinical evaluation of biological BSMs intended for application in highly loaded skeletal sites is discussed. The selected animal models and implantation site should mimic the pathophysiology and biomechanical loading patterns of human bone as closely as possible. In general, sheep are among the most frequently selected animal models for the evaluation of biomaterials intended for highly loaded skeletal sites. Regarding the anatomical sites, segmental bone defects created in the limbs and spinal column are suggested as the most suitable. Furthermore, the outcome measurements used to assess biological BSMs for regeneration of defects in heavily loaded bone should be relevant and straightforward. The quantitative evaluation of bone defect healing through ex vivo biomechanical tests is a valuable addition to conventional in vivo tests, as it determines the functional efficacy of BSM-induced bone healing. Finally, we conclude that further standardization of preclinical studies is essential for reliable evaluation of biological BSMs in highly loaded skeletal sites.
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.