ArticlePloS one2025
Comparative study of bovine and synthetic hydroxyapatite in micro- and nanosized on osteoblasts action and bone growth.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Membranes for Bone Engineering Enriched with Magnesium- and Strontium-Substituted Hydroxyapatite.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Effect of Zinc and Magnesium Compounds and Nano-Hydroxyapatite on the Physicochemical Properties and Biological Activity of Alginate and Gelatin Scaffolds for Osteochondral Defects.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Synthesis and Characterization of Calcium Hydroxyapatite from Waste Phosphogypsum.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hydroxyapatite (HA) is widely used as a bone graft. However, information on the head-to-head osteoinductivity and in vivo performance of micro- and nanosized natural and synthetic HA is still lacking. Here, we fabricated nanosized bovine HA (nanoBHA) by using a wet ball milling method and compared its in vitro and in vivo performance with microsized BHA, nanosized synthetic HA (nanoHA), and microsized synthetic HA (HA). The results showed that the wet ball milling method successfully reduced the particle size of BHA to 40 nm without changing its natural characteristics. NanoBHA was able to maintain cell viability and induce cell proliferation and calcium deposits. NanoBHA promoted osteogenic differentiation via OPN as a specific regulator, with a 13-fold greater expression level. NanoBHA and HA also activated ERK1/2 indicated corresponding to the proliferation-differentiation and death of cells, respectively. The calvarial bone defect model showed that nanoBHA induced bone growth based on CT images, which is in line with the histological results showing the presence of bone cells and connective tissue at the nanoBHA implantation site. In conclusion, natural HA outperformed synthetic HA. Our findings will attract interest in further research into nanomaterials and their mechanism of action in bone remodeling.
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.