Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34036754›Full record

ReviewAdvanced healthcare materials2021

Inorganic Agents for Enhanced Angiogenesis of Orthopedic Biomaterials.

Monika Šalandová, Ingmar A J van Hengel, Iulian Apachitei, Amir A Zadpoor, Bram C J van der Eerden, Lidy E Fratila-Apachitei

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advanced healthcare materials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Materials today. Bio · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Research Progress in Medical Biomaterials for Bone Infections.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Monika ŠalandováAdditive Manufacturing Laboratory, Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime, and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, Delft, 2628 CD, The Netherlands.
Ingmar A J van HengelAdditive Manufacturing Laboratory, Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime, and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, Delft, 2628 CD, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7171-257X
Iulian ApachiteiAdditive Manufacturing Laboratory, Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime, and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, Delft, 2628 CD, The Netherlands.
Amir A ZadpoorAdditive Manufacturing Laboratory, Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime, and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, Delft, 2628 CD, The Netherlands.
Bram C J van der EerdenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, Rotterdam, 3015 GD, The Netherlands.
Lidy E Fratila-ApachiteiAdditive Manufacturing Laboratory, Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime, and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, Delft, 2628 CD, The Netherlands.
Delft University of Technology · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aseptic loosening of a permanent prosthesis remains one of the most common reasons for bone implant failure. To improve the fixation between implant and bone tissue as well as enhance blood vessel formation, bioactive agents are incorporated into the surface of the biomaterial. This study reviews and compares five bioactive elements (copper, magnesium, silicon, strontium, and zinc) with respect to their effect on the angiogenic behavior of endothelial cells (ECs) when incorporated on the surface of biomaterials. Moreover, it provides an overview of the state-of-the-art methodologies used for the in vitro assessment of the angiogenic properties of these elements. Two databases are searched using keywords containing ECs and copper, magnesium, silicon, strontium, and zinc. After applying the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 59 articles are retained for the final assessment. An overview of the angiogenic properties of five bioactive elements and the methods used for assessment of their in vitro angiogenic potential is presented. The findings show that silicon and strontium can effectively enhance osseointegration through the simultaneous promotion of both angiogenesis and osteogenesis. Therefore, their integration onto the surface of biomaterials can ultimately decrease the incidence of implant failure due to aseptic loosening.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsEndothelial CellsOsseointegrationOsteogenesisStrontiumBiocompatible MaterialsStrontiumangiogenesisbone regenerationorthopedic implantstrace elements

Identifiers

PMID34036754
PMCPMC11469191
OpenAlexW3164477123

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.