Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36614010›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2022

In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation of Injectable Strontium-Modified Calcium Phosphate Cement for Bone Defect Repair in Rats.

Hailiang Xu, Lei Zhu, Fang Tian, Chengwen Wang, Weidong Wu, Botao Lu, Liang Yan, Shuaijun Jia, Dingjun Hao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Advances in Periodontal Therapy: A Comprehensive Review ofCurrent drug discovery technologies · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Harnessing strontium in regenerative dentistry: progress and perspectives.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

9 authors.

Hailiang XuDepartment of Spine Surgery, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710054, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2970-6213
Lei ZhuDepartment of Spine Surgery, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710054, China.
Fang TianDepartment of Spine Surgery, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710054, China.
Chengwen WangDepartment of Spine Surgery, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710054, China.
Weidong WuDepartment of Spine Surgery, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710054, China.
Botao LuDepartment of Spine Surgery, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710054, China.
Liang YanDepartment of Spine Surgery, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710054, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5062-2540
Shuaijun JiaDepartment of Spine Surgery, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710054, China.
Dingjun HaoDepartment of Spine Surgery, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710054, China.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81830077Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi province 2022SF-005Xi'an Science and Technology Plan Project 2018xasj1004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Calcium phosphate cement (CPC) has been widely studied, but its lack of osteoinductivity and inadequate mechanical properties limit its application, while strontium is able to promote bone formation and inhibit bone resorption. In this study, different proportions of tristrontium silicate were introduced to create a novel strontium-modified calcium phosphate cement (SMPC). The physicochemical properties of SMPC and CPC were compared, and the microstructures of the bone cements were characterized with scanning electron microscopy assays. Then, the effect of SMPC on cell proliferation and differentiation was examined. Furthermore, local inflammatory response and osteogenesis after SMPC implantation were also confirmed in the study. Finally, a rat model of isolated vertebral defects was used to test the biomechanical properties of the cements. The results showed that SMPC has better injectability and a shorter setting time than CPC. Meanwhile, the addition of tristrontium silicate promoted the mechanical strength of calcium phosphate cement, and the compressive strength of 5% SMPC increased to 6.00 ± 0.74 MPa. However, this promotion effect gradually diminished with an increase in tristrontium silicate, which was also found in the rat model of isolated vertebral defects. Furthermore, SMPC showed a more preferential role in promoting cell proliferation and differentiation compared to CPC. Neither SMPC nor CPC showed significant inflammatory responses in vivo. Histological staining suggested that SMPCs were significantly better than CPC in promoting new bone regeneration. Importantly, this osteogenesis effect of SMPC was positively correlated with the ratio of tristrontium silicate. In conclusion, 5% SMPC is a promising substitute material for bone repair with excellent physicochemical properties and biological activity.

Indexed as

Bone CementsCalciumAnimalsCalcium, DietaryCalcium PhosphatesOsteogenesisPhosphatesRatsSilicatesStrontiumBone CementsCalciumCalcium, Dietarycalcium phosphateCalcium PhosphatesPhosphatesSilicatesStrontiumstrontium phosphatecalcium phosphate cementinflammationmechanical propertyosteogenesisstrontiumtristrontium silicate

Identifiers

PMID36614010
PMCPMC9820753

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.