Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42583376›Full record

ArticleActa ortopedica brasileira2026

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF FIRST- AND ADAPTED SECOND-GENERATION BONE CEMENTATION IN POST-CURETTAGE BONE DEFECT FILLING IN AN ANIMAL MODEL.

Mateus de Vita Mendes Cruz, Nelson Fabrício Gava, Vitor Freire da Rocha, Cátia Isumi Miyase, Edgard Eduard Engel, Mariana Avelino Dos Santos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta ortopedica brasileira, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Mateus de Vita Mendes CruzUniversidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao Preto (HCFMRP), Hospital das Clinicas, Departamento de Ortopedia e Anestesiologia, Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7139-2772
Nelson Fabrício GavaUniversidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao Preto (HCFMRP), Hospital das Clinicas, Departamento de Ortopedia e Anestesiologia, Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9491-3393
Vitor Freire da RochaCentro Universitario Padre Albino, Hospital Escola Emilio Carlos e Hospital Padre Albino, Departamento de Ortopedia do Catanduva, Catanduva, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9403-2020
Cátia Isumi MiyaseUniversidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao Preto (HCFMRP), Hospital das Clinicas, Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2010-3798
Edgard Eduard EngelUniversidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao Preto (HCFMRP), Hospital das Clinicas, Departamento de Ortopedia e Anestesiologia, Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4047-2796
Mariana Avelino Dos SantosUniversidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao Preto (HCFMRP), Hospital das Clinicas, Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6041-1015

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Bone cementation is fundamental for orthopedic stability, and different techniques have been proposed to optimize the bone-cement interface. Objective: To evaluate whether adapted second-generation cementation improves osteointegration compared with the first-generation technique. Methods: Bone defects created in the femora and tibiae of goats were filled with polymethylmethacrylate using either the first-generation technique (Group 1) or an adaptation of the second-generation technique (Group 2). Cementation quality and the bone-cement interface were assessed by radiography, CT, and photographic analysis, evaluated by orthopedic examiners. Statistical analyses employed the chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: No statistical differences were observed between the groups regarding cementation quality (radiography and CT) or osteointegration (photographic analysis) (p > 0.05). On CT, the mean number of bubbles was higher in the second-generation (6.05 vs. 3.95), whereas the proportion of samples with ≥5 bubbles was higher in the first-generation (50% vs. 30%). Photographic analysis showed that the second-generation group had a higher mean number of interdigitations (2.4 vs. 1.6) and a greater frequency of rough interfaces (50% vs. 25%). However, the first-generation group presented greater interdigitation depth (0.40 mm vs. 0.35 mm). Conclusion: Adapted second-generation cementation showed no clear advantage over the first-generation technique.

Indexed as

Bone CementsBone NeoplasmsCurettagePolymethyl Methacrylate

Identifiers

PMID42583376
PMCPMC13461002

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.