ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2026
Objective selection of bone mimetic materials using impact microindentation.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Research and development for orthopedic medical devices, implants, surgical technique, and surgical education all require the appropriate selection of bone mimetic materials to align with the physiologic conditions. There is a critical need for an objective measure of material strength that can be collected, practically, on both bone mimetic materials and living human bone to improve mimetic material selection. Methods: This study stratifies commonly used synthetic materials in orthopedic research, as well as animal and human bone, using impact microindentation. The impact microindentation is performed with the OsteoProbe, an FDA-approved handheld medical device that can quantify material strength via the Bone Material Strength index in living human bone and mimetic materials non-destructively and in situ. Categories of Low, Mid, and High are created in reference to published living human tibia Bone Material Strength index ranges. All materials tested are classified into these categories for streamlined bone mimetic material selection. Results: Nine mimetic materials fell within the Low category. Two mimetic materials were classified as Mid and two as High. The male human cadaver cranium, radius, and femur fell within the High category; the male spine was classified in the Mid hardness category. In female cadaver tissue, the spine corresponded to the Low hardness category, the radius to Mid, and the femur to High. The ovine skull fell within the Mid category. Both the porcine thoracolumbar spine and bovine scapula fell within the High category. Conclusion: This unified scale of material strength allows for the comparison of human bones, animal bones and synthetic materials. By stratifying bone mimetics into three categories (Low, Mid, and High) of material strength based on healthy reference interval of living human Bone Material Strength index values, this study introduces a simplified framework to guide targeted material selection in orthopedic research and surgical training.
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.