ArticlePolymers2022
Biodegradable Hydrogel Beads Combined with Calcium Phosphate Bone Cement for Bone Repair: In Vitro and In Vivo Characterization.
Article in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Injectability, Processability, Drug Loading, and Antibacterial Activity of Gentamicin-Impregnated Mesoporous Bioactive Glass Composite Calcium Phosphate Bone Cement In Vitro.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the in vitro characterizations of biodegradable hydrogel beads with calcium phosphate bone cement (CPC). Commercial fast-setting CPC and hydrogel beads were compared with 25%-volume hydrogel in CPC (C/0.25) in vivo. The histological behaviors and absorption rates of CPC only, hydrogel beads, and hydrogel/CPC composite were measured and compared at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The results indicated that the C/0.25 composite can be molded and does not disintegrate when immersed in the solution, but this delays the phase transition of the CPC into the product in the early reaction process. The osteoprogenitor D1 cell affinity of the C/0.25 composite was equally competitive with that of the CPC-only. Adding hydrogel beads to CPC did not inhibit cell proliferation as well as differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells. In vivo histological evaluations did not indicate any significant difference in the CPC-only, hydrogel-only, and C/0.25 composite after 4 weeks of implantation; however, significantly less residue was observed in the C/0.25 composite relative to the CPC-only after 8 weeks. After 12 weeks of hydrogel beads implantation, the hydrogel degraded substantially, creating vacancies that were subsequently occupied by a large amount of soft tissue. New bone was formed in large quantities in the C/0.25; therefore, the C/0.25 composite is a promising option for a wide range of dental, craniofacial, and orthopedic applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.