Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39337881›Full record

ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Evaluation of Biocomposite Cements for Bone Defect Repair in Rat Models.

Alina Ioana Ardelean, Sorin Marian Mârza, Raluca Marica, Mădălina Florina Dragomir, Alina Oana Rusu-Moldovan, Mărioara Moldovan, Paula Maria Pașca, Liviu Oana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Alina Ioana ArdeleanDepartment of Veterinary Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3-5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.ORCID 0000-0003-1493-3162
Sorin Marian MârzaDepartment of Veterinary Imagistics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3-5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Raluca MaricaDepartment of Veterinary Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3-5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-4240-0833
Mădălina Florina DragomirDepartment of Veterinary Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3-5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-5287-4370
Alina Oana Rusu-MoldovanDepartment of Surgery III, Institute of Oncology "Prof. Dr. Alexandru Trestioreanu", 022328 Bucharest, Romania.
Mărioara MoldovanRaluca Ripan Institute for Research in Chemistry, Babeș-Bolyai University, 30 Fantanele Street, 400294 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.ORCID 0000-0001-9714-4809
Paula Maria PașcaClinics Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultural Science and Veterinary Medicine, 700489 Iasi, Romania.
Liviu OanaDepartment of Veterinary Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultura Sciencies and Veterinary Medicine, 3-5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Repairing or reconstructing significant bone defects is typically challenging. In the present study, two composite cements were used as scaffolds in a sub-critical femoral defect in rats. A control group and two experimental batches were used to compare the outcomes. This research aimed to investigate the osteogenic potential and toxicological tolerance of the bioproducts through histopathology and computed tomography imaging analysis at 14, 28, 56, and 90 days post-implantation. The biomaterials used in the investigation consisted of a 65% bioactive salinized inorganic filler and a 25% weight organic matrix. The organic part of the biomaterial was composed of Bis-GMA (bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate), UDMA (urethane dimethacrylate), HEMA (2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate), and TEGDMA (triethylene glycol dimethacrylate), while the inorganic filler was composed of silica, barium glass, hydroxyapatite, and fluor aluminosilicate glass. The first findings of this research are encouraging, revealing that there is a slight difference between the groups treated with biomaterials, but it might be an effective approach for managing bone abnormalities. Material C1 exhibited a faster bone defect healing time compared to material C2, where bone fractures occurred in some individuals. It is unclear if the fractures were caused by the presence of the biomaterial C2 or whether additional variables were to blame. By the end of the research, the mice appeared to tolerate the biomaterials without exhibiting any inflammatory or rejection responses.

Indexed as

biomaterialcomposite cement scaffoldsfemurratssub-critical bone defect repairment

Identifiers

PMID39337881
PMCPMC11432940

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.