Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32526829›Full record

ReviewBiomolecules2020

Pre-Clinical Evaluation of Biological Bone Substitute Materials for Application in Highly Loaded Skeletal Sites.

Sónia de Lacerda Schickert, Jeroen J J P van den Beucken, Sander C G Leeuwenburgh, John A Jansen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors.

Sónia de Lacerda SchickertDepartment of Dentistry-Regenerative Biomaterials, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 25, 6525EX Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3142-735X
Jeroen J J P van den BeuckenDepartment of Dentistry-Regenerative Biomaterials, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 25, 6525EX Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0301-1966
Sander C G LeeuwenburghDepartment of Dentistry-Regenerative Biomaterials, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 25, 6525EX Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
John A JansenDepartment of Dentistry-Regenerative Biomaterials, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 25, 6525EX Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3077-8617

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek VIDI Grant 13455
6 · The paper itself

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

Bone RegenerationWeight-BearingAnimalsBone and BonesBone SubstitutesHumansBone Substitutesanimal modelsbiological bone substitute materialsbiomechanical evaluationhighly loaded skeletal sites

Identifiers

PMID32526829
PMCPMC7356650

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.