Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32629907›Full record

ReviewPolymers2020

Polymethyl Methacrylate-Based Bone Cements Containing Carbon Nanotubes and Graphene Oxide: An Overview of Physical, Mechanical, and Biological Properties.

Sanaz Soleymani Eil Bakhtiari, Hamid Reza Bakhsheshi-Rad, Saeed Karbasi, Mohamadreza Tavakoli, Mahmood Razzaghi, Ahmad Fauzi Ismail, Seeram RamaKrishna, Filippo Berto

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Polymers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Emerging treatment strategies in wound care.International wound journal · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Sanaz Soleymani Eil BakhtiariAdvanced Materials Research Center, Department of Materials Engineering, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran.
Hamid Reza Bakhsheshi-RadAdvanced Materials Research Center, Department of Materials Engineering, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran.
Saeed KarbasiBiomaterials and Tissue Engineering Department, School of Advanced Technologes in Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan 81746-73461, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-5045-177X
Mohamadreza TavakoliDepartment of Materials Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran.
Mahmood RazzaghiAdvanced Materials Research Center, Department of Materials Engineering, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-3466-4206
Ahmad Fauzi IsmailAdvanced Membrane Technology Research Center (AMTEC), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor Bahru, Johor 81310, Malaysia.
Seeram RamaKrishnaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore 117576, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-8479-8686
Filippo BertoDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
Islamic Azad University of Najafabad · IRIsfahan University of Medical Sciences · IRIsfahan University of Technology · IRNational University of Singapore · SGNorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOUniversity of Technology Malaysia · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Every year, millions of people in the world get bone diseases and need orthopedic surgery as one of the most important treatments. Owing to their superior properties, such as acceptable biocompatibility and providing great primary bone fixation with the implant, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA)-based bone cements (BCs) are among the essential materials as fixation implants in different orthopedic and trauma surgeries. On the other hand, these BCs have some disadvantages, including Lack of bone formation and bioactivity, and low mechanical properties, which can lead to bone cement (BC) failure. Hence, plenty of studies have been concentrating on eliminating BC failures by using different kinds of ceramics and polymers for reinforcement and also by producing composite materials. This review article aims to evaluate mechanical properties, self-setting characteristics, biocompatibility, and bioactivity of the PMMA-based BCs composites containing carbon nanotubes (CNTs), graphene oxide (GO), and carbon-based compounds. In the present study, we compared the effects of CNTs and GO as reinforcement agents in the PMMA-based BCs. Upcoming study on the PMMA-based BCs should concentrate on trialing combinations of these carbon-based reinforcing agents as this might improve beneficial characteristics.

Indexed as

bone cementscarbonpolymethylmethacrylatereinforcement materials

Identifiers

PMID32629907
PMCPMC7407371
OpenAlexW3039933878

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.