ArticleBioactive materials2025
Article in Bioactive materials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI for bioactive materials: From material design to biological applications.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- [Research progress on the role and mechanism of magnesium element and magnesium materials in tendon-bone interface healing].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
- Comparable biomechanical performance of magnesium-based and titanium screws for the Latarjet procedure in a cadaveric study.JSES international · 2026Article
- Magnesium-containing implants enhance bone healing: A mechanobiological perspective.Mechanobiology in medicine · 2025Review
- The Recent Developments of Thermomechanical Processing for Biomedical Mg Alloys and Their Clinical Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Development of an implantable sensor system forBioactive materials · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnesium alloys present a compelling prospect for absorbable implant materials in orthopedic and trauma surgery. This study evaluates an ultra-high purity, lean magnesium-calcium alloy (X0), both with and without plasma electrolytic oxidation (PEO) surface modification, in comparison to a clinically utilized WE43 magnesium alloy. It is shown that the mechanical properties of X0 can be tuned to yield a high-strength material suitable for bone screws (with an ultimate tensile strength of 336 MPa) or a ductile material appropriate for intraoperatively deformable plates (with an elongation at fracture of 24 %). Four plate-screw combinations were implanted onto the pelvic bones of six sheep without osteotomy for 8 weeks. Subsequent analysis utilized histology, micro-computed tomography, and light and electron microscopy. All implants exhibited signs of degradation and hydrogen-gas evolution, with PEO-coated X0 implants demonstrating the least volume loss and the most substantial new-bone formation on the implant surface and surrounding cancellous bone. Furthermore, the osteoconductive properties of the X0 implants, when uncoated, exceeded those of the uncoated WE43 implants, as evidenced by greater new-bone formation on the surface. This osteoconductivity was amplified with PEO surface modification, which mitigated gas evolution and enhanced osseointegration, encouraging bone apposition in the cancellous bone vicinity. These findings thus indicate that PEO-coated X0 implants hold substantial promise as a biocompatible and absorbable implant material.
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.