Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32727506›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2020

Bone defect reconstruction with a novel biomaterial containing calcium phosphate and aluminum oxide reinforcement.

Alexander M Keppler, Maximilian M Saller, Paolo Alberton, Ines Westphal, Frank Heidenau, Veronika Schönitzer, Wolfgang Böcker, Christian Kammerlander, Matthias Schieker, Attila Aszodi and 1 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Speed and quality of interbody fusion in porous bioceramic AlJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023
    Trial
  2. Bioinspired functional materials for biomedical applications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Bone Regeneration: Mini-Review and Appealing Perspectives.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  6. Existing and Novel Biomaterials for Bone Tissue Engineering.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexander M KepplerDepartment of General, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Maximilian M SallerDepartment of General, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Paolo AlbertonDepartment of General, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Ines WestphalDepartment of General, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Frank HeidenauBioCer GmbH, Bayreuth, Germany.
Veronika SchönitzerDepartment of General, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Wolfgang BöckerDepartment of General, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Christian KammerlanderDepartment of General, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Matthias SchiekerDepartment of General, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Attila AszodiDepartment of General, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Carl NeuerburgDepartment of General, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. carl.neuerburg@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1373-093X
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEBioCer Entwicklungs (Germany) · DENovartis (Switzerland) · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReconstruction of metaphyseal fractures represents a clinical challenge for orthopedic surgeons. Especially in osteoporotic bone, these fractures are frequently accompanied by osseous substance defects. In order to ensure rapid mobilization of patients, high stability requirements must be met by osteosynthesis. Various bone graft materials have been introduced in the past, such as autologous bone or exogenous bone substitute materials. These are used as bone void fillers or as augmentation techniques to ensure safe fixation of osteosynthesis. New calcium phosphate-based bone void-filling materials could be a promising alternative to autologous bone or to the currently and widely used polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)-based cement. The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel paste-like bone void filler in vivo and in vitro with regard to biocompatibility and osteoconductivity.

methodsIn addition to in vitro testing of cell compatibility using pre-osteoblasts (MC3T3-E1), 35 Wistar rats were treated in vivo with implantation of various material mixtures based on calcium phosphate and aluminum oxide reinforcement in a metaphyseal drill hole defect. After 4 weeks, an examination by micro-computed tomography (μCT) and histology was performed.

resultsThe in vitro analysis showed good biocompatibility with a high cell survival of osteoblasts. In the in vivo experiments, a significantly higher bone ingrowth compared to the empty defect was shown by μCT and histological analysis. Here, the group receiving material reinforced with aluminum oxide (Al

conclusionThe results of this study show an encouraging first step towards the development of new pasty, bone void-filling materials. We demonstrated that a new paste-like bone-filling material, based on calcium phosphate granulates and aluminum oxide to provide strength, exhibits good biocompatibility and osteoconductivity. Further biomechanical test in an osteoporotic animal model will have to be performed, to prove feasibility in metaphyseal defects.

Indexed as

Aluminum OxideBiocompatible MaterialsBone SubstitutesCalcium PhosphatesAnimalsBone RegenerationDisease Models, AnimalEpiphysesFractures, BoneOrthopedic ProceduresOsteoblastsOsteoporosisPlastic Surgery ProceduresRats, WistarAluminum OxideBiocompatible MaterialsBone Substitutescalcium phosphateCalcium Phosphates

Identifiers

PMID32727506
PMCPMC7391532
OpenAlexW3045750733

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.