Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35805602›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Histological and Biological Response to Different Types of Biomaterials: A Narrative Single Research Center Experience over Three Decades.

Margherita Tumedei, Eitan Mijiritsky, Carlos Fernando Mourão, Adriano Piattelli, Marco Degidi, Carlo Mangano, Giovanna Iezzi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Osseointegration evaluation of an experimental bone graft material based on hydroxyapatite, reinforced with titanium-based particles.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie
    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

7 authors.

Margherita TumedeiDepartment of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milano, 20122 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8770-5297
Eitan MijiritskyDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv 64239, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-1661-7529
Carlos Fernando MourãoClinical Research Unit of the Antonio Pedro Hospital, Fluminense Federal University, Niteroi 24033-900, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-5775-0222
Adriano PiattelliRetrieval Bank of the Laboratory for Undemineralized Hard Tissue Histology, University "G. D'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy.
Marco DegidiIndependent Researcher, 40100 Bologna, Italy.
Carlo ManganoIndependent Researcher, Gravedona, 22100 Como, Italy.
Giovanna IezziRetrieval Bank of the Laboratory for Undemineralized Hard Tissue Histology, University "G. D'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn more than three decades of work of the Retrieval Bank of the Laboratory for Undemineralized Hard Tissue Histology of the University of Chieti-Pescara in Italy, many types of biomaterials were received and evaluated. The present retrospective review aimed to evaluate the histological and biological aspects of the evaluated bone substitute biomaterials.

methodsIn the present study, the authors prepared a retrospective analysis after the screening of some databases (PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE) to find papers published from the Retrieval Bank of the Laboratory for Undermineralized Hard Tissue Histology of the University of Chieti-Pescara analyzing only the papers dealing with bone substitute biomaterials and scaffolds, in the form of granules and block grafts, for bone regeneration procedures.

resultsFifty-two articles were found, including in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies of different biomaterials. These articles were evaluated and organized in tables for a better understanding.

conclusionsOver three decades of studies have made it possible to assess the quality of many bone substitute biomaterials, helping to improve the physicochemical and biological properties of the biomaterials used in daily clinical practice.

Indexed as

Bone SubstitutesBiocompatible MaterialsBone RegenerationItalyRetrospective StudiesBiocompatible MaterialsBone Substitutesbone substitutesgraftsscaffoldstissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID35805602
PMCPMC9265446

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.