Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34046400›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2021

Use of Amniotic Membrane and Its Derived Products for Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review.

Marion Etchebarne, Jean-Christophe Fricain, Halima Kerdjoudj, Roberta Di Pietro, Susanne Wolbank, Florelle Gindraux, Mathilde Fenelon

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2021. 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. Comparison Between Human Amniotic Membrane and Biodentine as A Pulp Capping Agent-An In Vitro Tooth Culture Study.Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Human amniotic membrane application in oral surgery-AnFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Marion EtchebarneUniv. Bordeaux, INSERM, BIOTIS, U1026, Bordeaux, France.
Jean-Christophe FricainUniv. Bordeaux, INSERM, BIOTIS, U1026, Bordeaux, France.
Halima KerdjoudjUniversité de Reims Champagne Ardenne, EA 4691, Biomatériaux et Inflammation en Site Osseux (BIOS), Reims, France.
Roberta Di PietroDepartment of Medicine and Ageing Sciences, Gabriele D'Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
Susanne WolbankLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Experimental and Clinical Traumatology, AUVA Research Center, Vienna, Austria.
Florelle GindrauxService de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Traumatologique et Plastique, CHU Besançon, Besançon, France.
Mathilde FenelonUniv. Bordeaux, INSERM, BIOTIS, U1026, Bordeaux, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thanks to their biological properties, amniotic membrane (AM), and its derivatives are considered as an attractive reservoir of stem cells and biological scaffolds for bone regenerative medicine. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the benefit of using AM and amniotic membrane-derived products for bone regeneration. An electronic search of the MEDLINE-Pubmed database and the Scopus database was carried out and the selection of articles was performed following PRISMA guidelines. This systematic review included 42 articles taking into consideration the studies in which AM, amniotic-derived epithelial cells (AECs), and amniotic mesenchymal stromal cells (AMSCs) show promising results for bone regeneration in animal models. Moreover, this review also presents some commercialized products derived from AM and discusses their application modalities. Finally, AM therapeutic benefit is highlighted in the reported clinical studies. This study is the first one to systematically review the therapeutic benefits of AM and amniotic membrane-derived products for bone defect healing. The AM is a promising alternative to the commercially available membranes used for guided bone regeneration. Additionally, AECs and AMSCs associated with an appropriate scaffold may also be ideal candidates for tissue engineering strategies applied to bone healing. Here, we summarized these findings and highlighted the relevance of these different products for bone regeneration.

Indexed as

amniotic epithelial cellsamniotic membraneamniotic mesenchymal stromal cellsbonebone tissue engineeringnatural scaffoldregenerative medicine

Identifiers

PMID34046400
PMCPMC8144457

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.