Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34112248›Full record

ReviewBiomaterials research2021

Additively manufactured titanium scaffolds and osteointegration - meta-analyses and moderator-analyses of in vivo biomechanical testing.

Simon Cleemput, Stijn E F Huys, Robbert Cleymaet, Wilfried Cools, Maurice Y Mommaerts

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomaterials research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Simon Cleemput *Doctoral School of Life Sciences and Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1090, Brussels, Belgium. simoncleemput@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9734-2191
Stijn E F Huys *Engineering Science, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Section of Biomechanics, Catholic University of Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Robbert CleymaetEuropean Face Centre, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1090, Brussels, Belgium.
Wilfried CoolsInterfaculty Center Data processing and Statistics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1090, Brussels, Belgium.
Maurice Y MommaertsEuropean Face Centre, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1090, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMaximizing osteointegration potential of three-dimensionally-printed porous titanium (3DPPT) is an ongoing focus in biomaterial research. Many strategies are proposed and tested but there is no weighted comparison of results.

methodsWe systematically searched Pubmed and Embase to obtain two pools of 3DPPT studies that performed mechanical implant-removal testing in animal models and whose characteristics were sufficiently similar to compare the outcomes in meta-analyses (MAs). We expanded these MAs to multivariable meta-regressions (moderator analysis) to verify whether statistical models including reported scaffold features (e.g., "pore-size", "porosity", "type of unit cell") or post-printing treatments (e.g., surface treatments, adding agents) could explain the observed differences in treatment effects (expressed as shear strength of bone-titanium interface).

results"Animal type" (species of animal in which the 3DPPT was implanted) and "type of post-treatment" (treatment performed after 3D printing) were moderators providing statistically significant models for differences in mechanical removal strength. An interaction model with covariables "pore-size" and "porosity" in a rabbit subgroup analysis (the most reported animal model) was also significant. Impact of other moderators (including "time" and "location of implant") was not statistically significant. DISCUSSION/

conclusionOur findings suggest a stronger effect from porosity in a rat than in a sheep model. Additionally, adding a calcium-containing layer does not improve removal strength but the other post-treatments do. Our results provide overview and new insights, but little narrowing of existing value ranges. Consequent reporting of 3DPPT characteristics, standardized comparison, and expression of porosity in terms of surface roughness could help tackle these existing dilemmas.

Indexed as

3D printingAnimal experimentationMeta-analysisTitanium

Identifiers

PMID34112248
PMCPMC8191027

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.