ArticleBioMed research international2020
Article in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding triple negative breast cancer bone metastasis: from 3D bioprinted models to clinical translation.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Strategies for promoting neurovascularization in bone regeneration.Military Medical Research · 2025Review
- Customized Additive Manufacturing in Bone Scaffolds-The Gateway to Precise Bone Defect Treatment.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2023Review
- Use of Customized 3D-Printed Titanium Augment With Tantalum Trabecular Cup for Large Acetabular Bone Defects in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Midterm Follow-Up Study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
methodsAs an acetabular bone defect model created in Bama miniswine, an augment individually fabricated by 3D print technique with Ti6Al4V powders was implanted to repair the defect. Nine swine were divided into three groups, including the immediate biomechanics group, 12-week biomechanics group, and 12-week histological group. The inner structural parameters of the 3D printed porous augment were measured by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), including porosity, pore size, and trabecular diameter. The matching degree between the postoperative augment and the designed augment was assessed by CT scanning and 3D reconstruction. In addition, biomechanical properties, such as stiffness, compressive strength, and the elastic modulus of the 3D printed porous augment, were measured by means of a mechanical testing machine. Moreover, bone ingrowth and implant osseointegration were histomorphometrically assessed.
resultsIn terms of the inner structural parameters of the 3D printed porous augment, the porosity was 55.48 ± 0.61%, pore size 319.23 ± 25.05
conclusionThe 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V augment designed in this study was well biocompatible with bone tissue, possessed proper biomechanical features, and was anatomically well matched with the defect bone. Therefore, the 3D printed porous Ti6Al4V augment possesses great potential as an alternative for individualized treatment of severe acetabular bone defects.
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.