ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparative Study on Biodegradation of Pure Iron Prepared by Microwave Sintering and Laser Melting.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent advances in Fe-based bioresorbable stents: Materials design and biosafety.Bioactive materials · 2024Review
- Surface Performance of Nano-CrN/TiN Multi-Layered Coating on the Surface of Ti Alloy.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Grain Growth upon Annealing and Its Influence on Biodegradation Rate for Pure Iron.Materials (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
For biodegradable pure iron implants, a higher biodegradation rate is preferred. In this work, we compared the biodegradation of pure iron prepared by microwave sintering and laser melting (designated as MSed Fe and LMed Fe, respectively). The MSed Fe presented a distinct porous structure, while the LMed Fe presented a relatively compact structure without any obvious pores. The biodegradation rate of the MSed Fe was higher than that of the LMed Fe, and their biodegradation rates were higher than that of the as-cast Fe. The biodegradation rates of the MSed Fe and the LMed Fe were approximately 44 and 13 times higher than that of the as cast Fe, respectively. The biodegradation was closely related to the microstructure's compactness and grain size. Moreover, the MSed Fe and the LMed Fe had satisfactory biocompatibility.
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.