ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Bone regeneration using moldable calcium phosphate with and without recombinant human BMP-2 in a rabbit critical-sized metaphyseal core defect model.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synergistic effects of denosumab and BMP-2 on bone regeneration in critical-sized femoral defects in ovariectomized rats.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026Article
- Dose-Dependent Osteoinduction by rhBMP-2-Loaded β-Tricalcium Phosphate Scaffolds in Rabbit Critical-Sized Calvarial Defects: Histological, Histomorphometric, CD31 Immunohistochemical Evaluation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMoldable calcium phosphate (MCaP) biomaterials have been studied as osteoconductive scaffolds for bone regeneration. However, their potential as carriers for recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) and the biological impact of varying rhBMP-2 doses remain to be fully validated. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MCaP alone and in combination with rhBMP-2 in a rabbit metaphyseal bone defect model.
methodsBilateral critical-sized metaphyseal core defects were created in the distal femurs of 73 skeletally mature female New Zealand White rabbits. Animals were assigned to six groups: sham, autograft, MCaP alone, or MCaP combined with low (0.04 mg/cc), mid (0.16 mg/cc), or high (0.6 mg/cc) doses of rhBMP-2. Bone formation and healing were assessed at 3 days and 3, 6, and 12 weeks using radiography, microcomputed tomography (μCT), histomorphometry, and histopathology. Local tissue reactions were evaluated according to ISO 10993-6 standards, and systemic toxicity was assessed through distant organ examinations.
resultsRadiographic and μCT analyses showed progressive bone formation in all treatment groups. Compared with autografts, both the MCaP and rhBMP-2-treated groups exhibited significantly higher bone in the region of interest at 6 and 12 weeks (p < 0.05), with no significant differences between the MCaP-only and rhBMP-2 groups. Histological evaluation revealed earlier and more active bone regeneration in rhBMP-2-treated groups, particularly at higher doses. Minimal inflammatory responses were observed across all groups, and no systemic toxicity was detected, supporting the biocompatibility and safety of MCaP-based constructs.
conclusionsThe MCaP carrier demonstrated strong osteoconductive potential and was sufficient to support bone healing compared to autograft in a metaphyseal defect model. The addition of rhBMP-2 promoted earlier bone formation. However, long-term studies in more challenging bone healing environments are warranted to further assess the clinical utility of rhBMP-2 in bone regeneration.
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.