ArticleBiomedicines2022
Cytocompatibility and Bioactive Ion Release Profiles of Phosphoserine Bone Adhesive: Bridge from In Vitro to In Vivo.
Article in Biomedicines, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomaterial-based strategies for bone cement: modulating the bone microenvironment and promoting regeneration.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Review
- In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation of a Bio-Inspired Adhesive for Bone Fixation.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- Gallium-Doped Hydroxyapatite Shows Antibacterial Activity againstJournal of functional biomaterials · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
One major challenge when developing new biomaterials is translating in vitro testing to in vivo models. We have recently shown that a single formulation of a bone tissue adhesive, phosphoserine modified cement (PMC), is safe and resorbable in vivo. Herein, we screened many new adhesive formulations, for cytocompatibility and bioactive ion release, with three cell lines: MDPC23 odontoblasts, MC3T3 preosteoblasts, and L929 fibroblasts. Most formulations were cytocompatible by indirect contact testing (ISO 10993-12). Formulations with larger amounts of phosphoserine (>50%) had delayed setting times, greater ion release, and cytotoxicity in vitro. The trends in ion release from the adhesive that were cured for 24 h (standard for in vitro) were similar to release from the adhesives cured only for 5−10 min (standard for in vivo), suggesting that we may be able to predict the material behavior in vivo, using in vitro methods. Adhesives containing calcium phosphate and silicate were both cytocompatible for seven days in direct contact with cell monolayers, and ion release increased the alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity in odontoblasts, but not pre-osteoblasts. This is the first study evaluating how PMC formulation affects osteogenic cell differentiation (ALP), cytocompatibility, and ion release, using in situ curing conditions similar to conditions in vivo.
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.