Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35313892›Full record

ReviewJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2022

Electrical stimulation to promote osseointegration of bone anchoring implants: a topical review.

Emily Pettersen, Jenna Anderson, Max Ortiz-Catalan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Active osseointegration in anFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emily PettersenCenter for Bionics and Pain Research, Mölndal, Sweden.
Jenna AndersonCenter for Bionics and Pain Research, Mölndal, Sweden.
Max Ortiz-CatalanCenter for Bionics and Pain Research, Mölndal, Sweden. maxo@chalmers.se.ORCID 0000-0002-6084-3865
Sahlgrenska University Hospital · SEFraunhofer Chalmers Research Centre for Industrial Mathematics · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrical stimulation has shown to be a promising approach for promoting osseointegration in bone anchoring implants, where osseointegration defines the biological bonding between the implant surface and bone tissue. Bone-anchored implants are used in the rehabilitation of hearing and limb loss, and extensively in edentulous patients. Inadequate osseointegration is one of the major factors of implant failure that could be prevented by accelerating or enhancing the osseointegration process by artificial means. In this article, we reviewed the efforts to enhance the biofunctionality at the bone-implant interface with electrical stimulation using the implant as an electrode. We reviewed articles describing different electrode configurations, power sources, and waveform-dependent stimulation parameters tested in various in vitro and in vivo models. In total 55 English-language and peer-reviewed publications were identified until April 2020 using PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Chalmers University of Technology Library discovery system using the keywords: osseointegration, electrical stimulation, direct current and titanium implant. Thirteen of those publications were within the scope of this review. We reviewed and compared studies from the last 45 years and found nonuniform protocols with disparities in cell type and animal model, implant location, experimental timeline, implant material, evaluation assays, and type of electrical stimulation. The reporting of stimulation parameters was also found to be inconsistent and incomplete throughout the literature. Studies using in vitro models showed that osteoblasts were sensitive to the magnitude of the electric field and duration of exposure, and such variables similarly affected bone quantity around implants in in vivo investigations. Most studies showed benefits of electrical stimulation in the underlying processes leading to osseointegration, and therefore we found the idea of promoting osseointegration by using electric fields to be supported by the available evidence. However, such an effect has not been demonstrated conclusively nor optimally in humans. We found that optimal stimulation parameters have not been thoroughly investigated and this remains an important step towards the clinical translation of this concept. In addition, there is a need for reporting standards to enable meta-analysis for evidence-based treatments.

Indexed as

Bone-Implant InterfaceOsseointegrationAnimalsElectric StimulationHumansProstheses and ImplantsSurface PropertiesTitaniumTitaniumBone formationElectrical stimulationOsseointegrationProsthesesTitanium implants

Identifiers

PMID35313892
PMCPMC8939223
OpenAlexW4220812653

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.