ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2020
Comparative osteoconductivity of bone void fillers with antibiotics in a critical size bone defect model.
Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translation-driven design: development of an antibiotic-loaded hydrogel for the management of orthopaedic device-related infection.Bioactive materials · 2026Article
- Advanced Trauma Care With Tricalcium Phosphate Bone Grafts for Tibial Plateau Fractures: A Report of Three Cases.Cureus · 2024Article
- The Efficacy of Calcium Sulfate/Hydroxyapatite (CaS/HA) Gentamicin in Osteomyelitis Treatment: A Case Series.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Outcome Analysis of the Use of CeramentDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Ceramic composite with gentamicin decreases persistent infection and increases bone formation in a rat model of debrided osteomyelitis.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2021Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to evaluate the comparative osteoconductivity of three commercially available bone void fillers containing gentamicin with respect to new bone, growth, host tissue response and resorption of the implant material. Defects were created in the cancellous bone of the distal femur and proximal tibia of 12-skeletally mature sheep and filled with three commercially available bone void fillers containing gentamicin (Stimulan-G, Cerament-G, Herafill-G). Peripheral blood was taken pre-operatively and at the time of implantation, as well as at intermittent timepoints following surgery to determine systemic gentamicin levels (5-,15- and 30- minutes, 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48- and 72-hours, 3-, 6- and 12-weeks). Decalcified, embedded samples were stained with haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and used to assess the host tissue response and the formation of new bone in the presence of test implant materials. No adverse reactions were noted at harvest at any time points for any cancellous implantation sites with the various implant materials. Comparative microCT analysis of the Stimulan-G, Cerament-G and Herafill-G test materials revealed a similar increase in bone surface area and volume between animals implanted with Stimulan-G or Cerament-G test materials. Animals implanted with Herafill-G test materials demonstrated the lowest increases in bone volume and surface area of the test materials tested, at levels similar to the negative control sites. By 12-weeks, Stimulan-G defects were completely closed with mature bone and bone marrow whilst the Cerament-G material was still present after 12 weeks by histological examination. In conclusion, this study demonstrated differences in the bone regenerative capacity of a range of bone void fillers in an in vivo setting.
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.