Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37111531›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutics2023

Magnetic Bone Tissue Engineering: Reviewing the Effects of Magnetic Stimulation on Bone Regeneration and Angiogenesis.

Tiago P Ribeiro, Miguel Flores, Sara Madureira, Francesca Zanotto, Fernando J Monteiro, Marta S Laranjeira

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Alveolar Bone Regeneration: Smart Biomaterials and Physical Stimulation.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tiago P Ribeiroi3S-Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen 208, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.
Miguel Floresi3S-Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen 208, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0009-0005-8085-4907
Sara MadureiraEscola Superior de Biotecnologia, CBQF-Centro de Biotecnologia e Química Fina-Laboratório Associado, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Rua Diogo Botelho 1327, 4169-005 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-1263-3676
Francesca Zanottoi3S-Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen 208, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.
Fernando J Monteiroi3S-Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen 208, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-1361-4605
Marta S Laranjeirai3S-Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen 208, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.
Universidade do Porto · PTUniversidade Católica Portuguesa · PTUniversity of Padua · IT

Funding

FEDER POCI-01- 0145-FEDER-007274Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia 2021.07672.BD
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone tissue engineering emerged as a solution to treat critical bone defects, aiding in tissue regeneration and implant integration. Mainly, this field is based on the development of scaffolds and coatings that stimulate cells to proliferate and differentiate in order to create a biologically active bone substitute. In terms of materials, several polymeric and ceramic scaffolds have been developed and their properties tailored with the objective to promote bone regeneration. These scaffolds usually provide physical support for cells to adhere, while giving chemical and physical stimuli for cell proliferation and differentiation. Among the different cells that compose the bone tissue, osteoblasts, osteoclasts, stem cells, and endothelial cells are the most relevant in bone remodeling and regeneration, being the most studied in terms of scaffold-cell interactions. Besides the intrinsic properties of bone substitutes, magnetic stimulation has been recently described as an aid in bone regeneration. External magnetic stimulation induced additional physical stimulation in cells, which in combination with different scaffolds, can lead to a faster regeneration. This can be achieved by external magnetic fields alone, or by their combination with magnetic materials such as nanoparticles, biocomposites, and coatings. Thus, this review is designed to summarize the studies on magnetic stimulation for bone regeneration. While providing information regarding the effects of magnetic fields on cells involved in bone tissue, this review discusses the advances made regarding the combination of magnetic fields with magnetic nanoparticles, magnetic scaffolds, and coatings and their subsequent influence on cells to reach optimal bone regeneration. In conclusion, several research works suggest that magnetic fields may play a role in regulating the growth of blood vessels, which are critical for tissue healing and regeneration. While more research is needed to fully understand the relationship between magnetism, bone cells, and angiogenesis, these findings promise to develop new therapies and treatments for various conditions, from bone fractures to osteoporosis.

Indexed as

angiogenesisbone regenerationmagnetic stimulationscaffolds

Identifiers

PMID37111531
PMCPMC10143200
OpenAlexW4360865247

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.