ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Spinal Implant Osseointegration and the Role of 3D Printing: An Analysis and Review of the Literature.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional Ureteral Obstruction Due to Retroperitoneal Tissue Interposition During Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Report of Two Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Static and Cyclic Mechanical Behavior of 3D-Printed PEEK Under Tensile and Compressive Loads.Polymers · 2026Article
- Combination of Noble Metal and Gold-Silver Nanoclusters as Enhanced Antibacterial Coatings for Ti-Based Medical Implants.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Innovative animal models for surgical interventions and implant biocompatibility: a translational perspective.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Application of custom-made joint prostheses in wrist.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2025Review
- Multiscale Mechanical Characterization of Polyether-2-ketone (PEKK) for Biomedical Application.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Quantitative relationships between elastic modulus of rod and biomechanical properties of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Implant Surface Technologies to Promote Spinal Fusion: A Narrative Review.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- 3D printing metal implants in orthopedic surgery: Methods, applications and future prospects.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2023Review
- The Clinical Use of Osteobiologic and Metallic Biomaterials in Orthopedic Surgery: The Present and the Future.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- MH cortical screws, a revolutionary orthodontic TADs design.Journal of orthodontic science · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of interbody implants for spinal fusion has been steadily increasing to avoid the risks of complications and donor site morbidity when using autologous bone. Understanding the pros and cons of various implant designs can assist the surgeon in choosing the ideal interbody for each individual patient. The goal of these interbody cages is to promote a surface area for bony ingrowth while having the biomechanical properties to support the axial skeleton. Currently, the majority of interbody implants consists of metal or polyether ether ketone (PEEK) cages with bone graft incorporated inside. Titanium alloy implants have been commonly used, however, the large difference in modulus of elasticity from bone has inherent issues. PEEK implants have a desirable surface area with the benefit of a modulus of elasticity closer to that of bone. Unfortunately, clinically, these devices have had increased risk of subsidence. More recently, 3D printed implants have come into the market, providing mechanical stability with increased surface design for bony ingrowth. While clinical outcomes studies are limited, early results have demonstrated more reliable and quicker fusion rates using 3D custom interbody devices. In this review, we discuss the biology of osseointegration, the use of surface coated implants, as well as the potential benefits of using 3D printed interbodies.
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.