ArticleNeurospine2023
Biomechanical Study of 3 Osteoconductive Materials Applied in Pedicle Augmentation and Revision for Osteoporotic Vertebrae: Allograft Bone Particles, Calcium Phosphate Cement, Demineralized Bone Matrix.
Article in Neurospine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Orthopedic Biomaterials in the Clinical Reconstruction of Osteoporotic Atlantoaxial Injuries: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Fiberfill©-A New Bone Substitute for Treatment of Chronic Osteomyelitis?Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of three distinct approaches for the management of type A1 traumatic thoracolumbar fractures: a retrospective cohort study with a minimum 6-year follow-up.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Personalized Approaches to Spine Surgery.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study assessed biomechanical properties of pedicle screws enhanced or revised with 3 materials. We aimed to compare the efficacy of these materials in pedicle augmentation and revision.
methodsOne hundred twenty human cadaveric vertebrae were utilized for in vitro testing. Vertebrae bone density was evaluated. Allograft bone particles (ABP), calcium phosphate cement (CPC), and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) were used to augment or revise pedicle screw. Post the implantation of pedicle screws, parameters such as insertional torque, pullout strength, cycles to failure and failure load were measured using specialized instruments.
resultsABP, CPC, and DBM significantly enhanced biomechanical properties of the screws. CPC augmentation showed superior properties compared to ABP or DBM. ABP-augmented screws had higher cycles to failure and failure loads than DBM-augmented screws, with no difference in pullout strength. CPC-revised screws exhibited similar strength to the original screws, while ABP-revised screws showed comparable cycles to failure and failure loads but lower pullout strength. DBM-revised screws did not match the original screws' strength.
conclusionABP, CPC, and DBM effectively improve pedicle screw stability for pedicle augmentation. CPC demonstrated the highest efficacy, followed by ABP, while DBM was less effective. For pedicle revision, CPC is recommended as the primary choice, with ABP as an alternative. However, using DBM for pedicle revision is not recommended.
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.