Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33498616›Full record

ReviewBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Mesoporous Bioactive Glasses Cytocompatibility Assessment: A Review of In Vitro Studies.

Margaux Salètes, Marta Vartin, Caroline Mocquot, Charlène Chevalier, Brigitte Grosgogeat, Pierre Colon, Nina Attik

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Bone Regeneration and Oxidative Stress: An Updated Overview.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors.

Margaux SalètesCPE Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CEDEX 08, 69372 Lyon, France.
Marta VartinCPE Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CEDEX 08, 69372 Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9326-4125
Caroline MocquotLaboratoire des Multimatériaux et Interfaces, UMR CNRS 5615, Université de Lyon-Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CEDEX 08, 69372 Lyon, France.
Charlène ChevalierLaboratoire des Multimatériaux et Interfaces, UMR CNRS 5615, Université de Lyon-Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CEDEX 08, 69372 Lyon, France.
Brigitte GrosgogeatLaboratoire des Multimatériaux et Interfaces, UMR CNRS 5615, Université de Lyon-Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CEDEX 08, 69372 Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2194-7300
Pierre ColonLaboratoire des Multimatériaux et Interfaces, UMR CNRS 5615, Université de Lyon-Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CEDEX 08, 69372 Lyon, France.
Nina AttikLaboratoire des Multimatériaux et Interfaces, UMR CNRS 5615, Université de Lyon-Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CEDEX 08, 69372 Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0002-8301-498X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thanks to their high porosity and surface area, mesoporous bioactive glasses (MBGs) have gained significant interest in the field of medical applications, in particular, with regards to enhanced bioactive properties which facilitate bone regeneration. The aim of this article is to review the state of the art regarding the biocompatibility evaluation of MBGs and provide a discussion of the various approaches taken. The research was performed using PubMed database and covered articles published in the last five years. From a total of 91 articles, 63 were selected after analyzing them according to our inclusion and exclusion criteria. In vitro methodologies and techniques used for biocompatibility assessment were investigated. Among the biocompatibility assessment techniques, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) has been widely used to study cell morphology and adhesion. Viability and proliferation were assessed using different assays including cell counting and/or cell metabolic activity measurement. Finally, cell differentiation tests relied on the alkaline phosphatase assay; however, these were often complemented by specific bimolecular tests according to the exact application of the mesoporous bioactive glass. The standardization and validation of all tests performed for MBG cytocompatibility is a key aspect and crucial point and should be considered in order to avoid inconsistencies, bias between studies, and unnecessary consumption of time. Therefore, introducing standard tests would serve an important role in the future assessment and development of MBG materials.

Indexed as

bioactivitycytocompatibilityin vitromedical applicationsmesoporous bioactive glasses

Identifiers

PMID33498616
PMCPMC7839003

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.