Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34359963›Full record

ReviewCells2021

Implant Fibrosis and the Underappreciated Role of Myofibroblasts in the Foreign Body Reaction.

Nina Noskovicova, Boris Hinz, Pardis Pakshir

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cells, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

89 citing papers in PubMed, 158 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Special Issue "Recent Advances in Wound Healing: 2nd Edition".International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nina NoskovicovaLaboratory of Tissue Repair and Regeneration, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 1G6, Canada.
Boris HinzLaboratory of Tissue Repair and Regeneration, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 1G6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0526-393X
Pardis PakshirLaboratory of Tissue Repair and Regeneration, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 1G6, Canada.
University of Toronto · CA

Funding

Canada Foundation for Innovation 36050Canada Foundation for Innovation 36349Canada Foundation for Innovation 38861CIHR 375597Mathematics of Information Technology and Complex Systems (MITACS) IT13587Ontario Research Foundation 36050Ontario Research Foundation 36349Ontario Research Foundation 38861
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Body implants and implantable medical devices have dramatically improved and prolonged the life of countless patients. However, our body repair mechanisms have evolved to isolate, reject, or destroy any object that is recognized as foreign to the organism and inevitably mounts a foreign body reaction (FBR). Depending on its severity and chronicity, the FBR can impair implant performance or create severe clinical complications that will require surgical removal and/or replacement of the faulty device. The number of review articles discussing the FBR seems to be proportional to the number of different implant materials and clinical applications and one wonders, what else is there to tell? We will here take the position of a fibrosis researcher (which, coincidentally, we are) to elaborate similarities and differences between the FBR, normal wound healing, and chronic healing conditions that result in the development of peri-implant fibrosis. After giving credit to macrophages in the inflammatory phase of the FBR, we will mainly focus on the activation of fibroblastic cells into matrix-producing and highly contractile myofibroblasts. While fibrosis has been discussed to be a consequence of the disturbed and chronic inflammatory milieu in the FBR, direct activation of myofibroblasts at the implant surface is less commonly considered. Thus, we will provide a perspective how physical properties of the implant surface control myofibroblast actions and accumulation of stiff scar tissue. Because formation of scar tissue at the surface and around implant materials is a major reason for device failure and extraction surgeries, providing implant surfaces with myofibroblast-suppressing features is a first step to enhance implant acceptance and functional lifetime. Alternative therapeutic targets are elements of the myofibroblast mechanotransduction and contractile machinery and we will end with a brief overview on such targets that are considered for the treatment of other organ fibroses.

Indexed as

Prostheses and ImplantsFibroblastsForeign-Body ReactionHumansMacrophagesMechanotransduction, CellularMyofibroblastscollagencontractureelastic modulusfibroblastmacrophagemechanosensingmicro-patternTGF-β1tissue repairtopographywound healing

Identifiers

PMID34359963
PMCPMC8304203
OpenAlexW3178890732

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.