ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Orthopedic Biomaterials in the Clinical Reconstruction of Osteoporotic Atlantoaxial Injuries: A Review.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAging of the population increases the incidence of osteoporosis with atlantoaxial instability. Poor bone microarchitecture causes high rates of screw loosening, implant failure, and revision surgery, which remains a critical challenge for upper cervical surgery. Traditional atlantoaxial fixation is less effective in those with low bone mineral density, while thoracolumbar screw augmentation techniques are limited by the complex craniocervical anatomy.
methodsThis review systematically summarizes the mainstream screw optimization strategies from a bioengineering perspective, including low-modulus alloy substrate modification, bionic threaded structural design, bioactive surface coatings, expandable screws, and cement-augmented cannulated screws. We compare the biomechanical anchorage performance, osteogenic capacity, and clinical complications of each technique.
resultsLow-elastic-modulus titanium alloys reduce stress shielding; gradient multi-thread, bicortical, and CBT trajectory designs significantly improve anti-pullout stability; HA, tantalum, and composite extracellular matrix coatings promote osseointegration; and expandable screws and fenestrated cement screws can achieve reliable reinforcement. However, a narrow atlantoaxial space restricts the application of cement augmentation and expandable implants, and long-term, large-sample clinical evidence for the efficacy of novel screws is insufficient.
conclusionPatient-specific porous degradable screws, which combine 3D-printed biomaterials, gradient alloys, and sustained-release bioactive coatings, represent a promising future research direction. This review provides theoretical support for the development of atlantoaxial internal fixation devices targeting elderly osteoporotic patients.
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.