ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2022
Novel Approaches Guiding the Future of Spinal Biologics for Bone Regeneration.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biodistribution and Biodegradation of an Osteoinductive Supramolecular Polymer Implant in a Rat Spinal Fusion Model.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Bone fusion materials: past, present, and future.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Retrospective analysis of biomechanical features in orthopedic spine disorders: a study on predictive factors for spinal abnormalities.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Article
- Transforming spinal surgery with innovations in biologics and additive manufacturing.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Advances in Synthetic Grafts in Spinal Fusion Surgery.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewDespite the continued growth of spine fusion procedures, the ideal material for bone regeneration remains unclear. Current bone graft substitutes and extenders in use such as exogenous BMP-2 or demineralized bone matrix and hydroxyapatite either have serious complications associated with use or lead to clinically significant rates of non-union. The introduction of nanotechnology and 3D printing to regenerative medicine facilitates the development of safer and more efficacious bone regenerative scaffolds that present solutions to these problems. Many researchers in orthopedics recognize the importance of lowering the dose of recombinant growth factors like BMP-2 to avoid the complications associated with its normal required supraphysiologic dosing to achieve high rates of fusion in spine surgery. RECENT
findingsRecent iterations of bioactive scaffolds have moved towards peptide amphiphiles that bind endogenous osteoinductive growth factor sources at the site of implantation. These molecules have been shown to provide a highly fluid, natural mimetic of natural extracellular matrix to achieve 100% fusion rates at 10-100 times lower doses of BMP-2 relative to controls in pre-clinical animal posterolateral fusion models. Alternative approaches to bone regeneration include the combination of existing natural growth factor sources like human bone combined with bioactive, biocompatible components like hydroxyapatite using 3D-printing technologies. Their elastomeric, 3D-printed scaffolds demonstrate an optimal safety profile and high rates of fusion (~92%) in the rat posterolateral fusion model. Bioactive peptide amphiphiles and developments in 3D printing offer the promising future of a recombinant growth factor- free bone graft substitute with similar efficacy but improved safety profiles compared to existing bone graft substitutes.
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.