Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34702541›Full record

ReviewMaterials science & engineering. C, Materials for biological applications2021

FDA-approved bone grafts and bone graft substitute devices in bone regeneration.

Cassidy E Gillman, Ambalangodage C Jayasuriya

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Materials science & engineering. C, Materials for biological applications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 203 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
203citing papers in PubMed
20.4field-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

203 citing papers in PubMed, 386 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Enhancing Bone Healing with a Priming Stimulus.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Bone Growth Stimulators to Enhance Spinal Fusion Outcomes.Spine surgery and related research · 2026
    Review
  19. Bone Fusion in the Cervical Spine: Where Are We Now?Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  20. Article

143 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cassidy E GillmanThe Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) Program, College of Medicine and Life Sciences, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43614, USA.
Ambalangodage C JayasuriyaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine and Life Sciences, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43614, USA. Electronic address: a.jayasuriya@utoledo.edu.
University of Toledo · US

Funding

Multifunctional bone putty for craniomaxillofacial bone repairR01DE023356 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO HEALTH SCI CAMPUS · PI JAYASURIYA, AMBALANGODAGE CHAMPA · 2013 to 2017
$2.0M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE023356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To induce bone regeneration there is a complex cascade of growth factors. Growth factors such as recombinant BMP-2, BMP-7, and PDGF are FDA-approved therapies in bone regeneration. Although, BMP shows promising results as being an alternative to autograft, it also has its own downfalls. BMP-2 has many adverse effects such as inflammatory complications such as massive soft-tissue swelling that can compromise a patient's airway, ectopic bone formation, and tumor formation. BMP-2 may also be advantageous for patients not willing to give up smoking as it shows bone regeneration success with smokers. BMP-7 is no longer an option for bone regeneration as it has withdrawn off the market. PDGF-BB grafts in studies have shown PDGF had similar fusion rates to autologous grafts and fewer adverse effects. There is also an FDA-approved bioactive molecule for bone regeneration, a peptide P-15. P-15 was found to be effective, safe, and have similar outcomes to autograft at 2 years post-op for cervical radiculopathy due to cervical degenerative disc disease. Growth factors and bioactive molecules show some promising results in bone regeneration, although more research is needed to avoid their adverse effects and learn about the long-term effects of these therapies. There is a need of a bone regeneration method of similar quality of an autograft that is osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and osteogenic. This review covers all FDA-approved bone regeneration therapies such as the "gold standard" autografts, allografts, synthetic bone grafts, and the newer growth factors/bioactive molecules. It also covers international bone grafts not yet approved in the United States and upcoming technologies in bone grafts.

Indexed as

Bone SubstitutesIntervertebral Disc DegenerationBone Morphogenetic Protein 2Bone RegenerationBone TransplantationCervical VertebraeHumansBone Morphogenetic Protein 2Bone SubstitutesBone cementBone graftsBone morphogenetic proteinsClinical indicationsFood and drug administrationPlatelet derived growth factor

Identifiers

PMID34702541
PMCPMC8555702
OpenAlexW3203925940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.