ArticleActa ortopedica brasileira2026
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF FIRST- AND ADAPTED SECOND-GENERATION BONE CEMENTATION IN POST-CURETTAGE BONE DEFECT FILLING IN AN ANIMAL MODEL.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.