Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41476619›Full record

ArticleRevista brasileira de ortopedia2025

Updates on Bone Grafts and Substitutes.

Edgard Eduard Engel, Nelson Fabrício Gava, Mariana Avelino Dos Santos, Leonardo Gomes Baldoino, Lucas Klarosk Ismael, Luis Felipe Miras Modolo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista brasileira de ortopedia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Edgard Eduard EngelDepartament of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4047-2796
Nelson Fabrício GavaDepartament of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9491-3393
Mariana Avelino Dos SantosDepartament of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0002-6041-1015
Leonardo Gomes BaldoinoDepartament of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0002-2887-0246
Lucas Klarosk IsmaelDepartament of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4185-1931
Luis Felipe Miras ModoloDepartament of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0009-7859-8720

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone defects caused by trauma, infections, neoplasms, and other conditions are commonly treated with autologous grafts, which are considered the gold standard due to their osteoinduction, osteoconduction, and osteogenesis properties. However, their use has limitations, including limited availability, donor-site morbidity, and increased surgical time. Alternatively, allogeneic grafts, xenografts, and synthetic bone substitutes, including ceramics, bioglasses, resins, and metals, have been developed and are often modified with osteoinductive elements, such as growth factors and bioinorganic ions. The ideal bone replacement should be biocompatible, bioabsorbable, mechanically resistant, porous, and capable of promoting osseointegration. Although synthetic substitutes have advanced, they have not yet achieved the effectiveness of autologous grafts, especially concerning osteointegration and economic viability. However, innovations in molecular biology, bone proteins, and gene therapies offer promising prospects for the development of new biomaterials. The current article introduces the reader to bone substitutes by presenting a classification of the materials used and the main characteristics of each group.

Indexed as

bone cementsbone regenerationbone remodelingbone substitutes

Identifiers

PMID41476619
PMCPMC12753175

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.