ArticleScientific reports2023
Bioactive glasses promote rapid pre-osteoblastic cell migration in contrast to hydroxyapatite, while carbonated apatite shows migration inhibiting properties.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pioneering next-generation bioactive materials for endodontics: Insights of mitochondrial biology.Bioactive materials · 2026Article
- Advances in functional nanomaterials and piezoelectric biomaterials for personalized intramedullary fixation: addressing age-related orthopedic challenges.Frontiers in chemistry · 2026Review
- Concerting magnesium implant degradation facilitates local chemotherapy in tumor-associated bone defect.Bioactive materials · 2024Article
- Efficient Bioactive Surface Coatings with Calcium Minerals: Step-Wise Biomimetic Transformation of Vaterite to Carbonated Apatite.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Three-dimensionally printed mesoporous bioactive glass for craniomaxillofacial bone regeneration: Material evolution, functional mechanisms, and clinical translation.Cell transplantationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Different biomaterials have been clinically used as bone filling materials, although the mechanisms behind the biological effects are incompletely understood. To address this, we compared the effects of five different biomaterials: two bioactive glasses (45S5 and S53P4), hydroxyapatite (HAP), carbonated apatite (CAP), and alumina on the in vitro migration and viability of pre-osteoblastic cells. In addition, we studied the effects of biomaterials' calcium release on cell migration, viability and differentiation. We found differences between the materials as the bioactive glasses promoted rapid pre-osteoblastic cell migration. In contrast, CAP decreased cell migration, which was also associated with lower activity of migration related kinases. Bioactive glasses released significant amounts of calcium into the media, while CAP decreased the calcium concentration. The response of cells to calcium was mechanistically studied by blocking calcium sensing receptor (CaSR) and ATP-gated ion channel P2X7, but this had no effect on cell migration. Surprisingly, HAP and CAP initially decreased cell viability. In summary, bioactive glasses 45S5 and S53P4 had significant and long-lasting effects on the pre-osteoblastic cell migration, which could be related to the observed calcium dissolution. Additionally, bioactive glasses had no negative effects on cell viability, which was observed with HAP and CAP.
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.