ArticleMaterials & design2026
A multi-modal strategy for enhancing titanium-bone interface strength and antimicrobial properties of PMMA bone cements.
Article in Materials & design, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Infection prevention and retention at the bone-device interface are critical for long-term stability of titanium-based biomedical implants. This study utilized a multifactorial approach to assess bond strength and antibacterial activity of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) bone cements modified with polymerizable antimicrobials (quaternary ammonium methacrylate, QAM) for sustained antibiofilm effects. Four commercial dental adhesives (Gen 4, Gen 5, Gen 6, Gen 7) were tested between porcine cortical bone and PMMA bone cements (Jet Acrylic or Biomet Bone Cement R). Shear bond strength (SBS), interface analysis (SEM, FTIR/ATR) and cytotoxicity (MTT) were evaluated and compared to controls without dental adhesive, which is the current standard of care. Top performing materials were subjected to stringent mechanical cycling in a bioreactor, followed by SBS assessment. Finally, bone cements were modified with QAMs and evaluated with or without dental adhesive for physical properties, antibiotic activity and SBS. Refobacin was used as an antibiotic-containing commercial control. Results showed more than a twenty-fold increase in SBS after 24 h and up to a fifteen-fold improvement after mechanical cycling with the Gen 6 adhesive, compared to commercial control cements. Refobacin and the QAM-modified cement significantly reduced
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.