Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37424385›Full record

ArticleAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)2023

Evolution from Bioinert to Bioresorbable: In Vivo Comparative Study of Additively Manufactured Metal Bone Scaffolds.

Juncen Zhou, Elias Georgas, Yingchao Su, Jiayi Zhou, Nadja Kröger, Felix Benn, Alexander Kopp, Yi-Xian Qin, Donghui Zhu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. TiOACS applied materials & interfaces · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Juncen ZhouDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7615-3543
Elias GeorgasDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.
Yingchao SuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.
Jiayi ZhouDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.
Nadja KrögerDivision of Plastic-, Reconstructive- and Aesthetic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Felix BennMeotec GmbH, 52068, Aachen, Germany.
Alexander KoppMeotec GmbH, 52068, Aachen, Germany.
Yi-Xian QinDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.
Donghui ZhuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3057-1889
Stony Brook University · USEvotec (Germany) · DEUniversity Hospital Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Additively manufactured scaffolds offer significant potential for treating bone defects, owing to their porous, customizable architecture and functionalization capabilities. Although various biomaterials have been investigated, metals - the most successful orthopedic material - have yet to yield satisfactory results. Conventional bio-inert metals, such as titanium (Ti) and its alloys, are widely used for fixation devices and reconstructive implants, but their non-bioresorbable nature and the mechanical property mismatch with human bones limit their application as porous scaffolds for bone regeneration. Advancements in additive manufacturing have facilitated the use of bioresorbable metals, including magnesium (Mg), zinc (Zn), and their alloys, as porous scaffolds via Laser Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) technology. This in vivo study presents a comprehensive, side-by-side comparative analysis of the interactions between bone regeneration and additively manufactured bio-inert/bioresorbable metal scaffolds, as well as their therapeutic outcomes. The research offers an in-depth understanding of the metal scaffold-assisted bone healing process, illustrating that Mg and Zn scaffolds contribute to the bone healing process in distinct ways, but ultimately deliver superior therapeutic outcomes compared to Ti scaffolds. These findings suggest that bioresorbable metal scaffolds hold considerable promise for the clinical treatment of bone defects in the near future.

Indexed as

AlloysBiocompatible MaterialsBone and BonesHumansMagnesiumProstheses and ImplantsTitaniumZincAlloysBiocompatible MaterialsMagnesiumTitaniumZincadditive manufacturingbioresorbable scaffoldbone regenerationmagnesium alloyzinc alloy

Identifiers

PMID37424385
PMCPMC10502659
OpenAlexW4383710571

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.