Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33262976›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2020

Mechano-Biological Computer Model of Scaffold-Supported Bone Regeneration: Effect of Bone Graft and Scaffold Structure on Large Bone Defect Tissue Patterning.

Camille Perier-Metz, Georg N Duda, Sara Checa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Rethinking osteocyte modelsFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Trabecular bone remodeling in the aging mouse: A micro-multiphysics agent-basedFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A 3DFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Camille Perier-MetzJulius Wolff Institute, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Georg N DudaJulius Wolff Institute, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Sara ChecaJulius Wolff Institute, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large segmental bone defects represent a clinical challenge for which current treatment procedures have many drawbacks. 3D-printed scaffolds may help to support healing, but their design process relies mainly on trial and error due to a lack of understanding of which scaffold features support bone regeneration. The aim of this study was to investigate whether existing mechano-biological rules of bone regeneration can also explain scaffold-supported bone defect healing. In addition, we examined the distinct roles of bone grafting and scaffold structure on the regeneration process. To that end, scaffold-surface guided migration and tissue deposition as well as bone graft stimulatory effects were included in an

Indexed as

3D-printed scaffold designbone defect healingbone graftbone tissue engineeringmechano-biologytissue regeneration

Identifiers

PMID33262976
PMCPMC7686036

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.