Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35018335›Full record

ReviewBioelectricity2021

Enhancement of Bone Regeneration Through the Converse Piezoelectric Effect, A Novel Approach for Applying Mechanical Stimulation.

Amber Carter, Kristen Popowski, Ke Cheng, Alon Greenbaum, Frances S Ligler, Adele Moatti

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioelectricity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Enhancing cancer therapyLab on a chip · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Open Challenges and Opportunities in Piezoelectricity for Tissue Regeneration.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amber CarterDepartment of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
Kristen PopowskiComparative Medicine Institute, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
Ke ChengComparative Medicine Institute, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
Alon GreenbaumComparative Medicine Institute, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
Frances S LiglerJoint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
Adele MoattiComparative Medicine Institute, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6946-5370
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USNorth Carolina State University · US

Funding

U-TEAM: Undergraduate Interdisciplinary Training in Comparative Biomedical ResearchT34GM131947 · NIGMS · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI PIEDRAHITA, JORGE A · 2019 to 2023
$1.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS T34 GM131947
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Serious bone injuries have devastating effects on the lives of patients including limiting working ability and high cost. Orthopedic implants can aid in healing injuries to an extent that exceeds the natural regenerative capabilities of bone to repair fractures or large bone defects. Autografts and allografts are the standard implants used, but disadvantages such as donor site complications, a limited quantity of transplantable bone, and high costs have led to an increased demand for synthetic bone graft substitutes. However, replicating the complex physiological properties of biological bone, much less recapitulating its complex tissue functions, is challenging. Extensive efforts to design biocompatible implants that mimic the natural healing processes in bone have led to the investigation of piezoelectric smart materials because the bone has natural piezoelectric properties. Piezoelectric materials facilitate bone regeneration either by accumulating electric charge in response to mechanical stress, which mimics bioelectric signals through the direct piezoelectric effect or by providing mechanical stimulation in response to electrical stimulation through the converse piezoelectric effect. Although both effects are beneficial, the converse piezoelectric effect can address bone atrophy from stress shielding and immobility by improving the mechanical response of a healing defect. Mechanical stimulation has a positive impact on bone regeneration by activating cellular pathways that increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption. This review will highlight the potential of the converse piezoelectric effect to enhance bone regeneration by discussing the activation of beneficial cellular pathways, the properties of piezoelectric biomaterials, and the potential for the more effective administration of the converse piezoelectric effect using wireless control.

Indexed as

bone regenerationconverse piezoelectric effectmechanical stimulation

Identifiers

PMID35018335
PMCPMC8742263
OpenAlexW3203865122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.