Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40142646›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025

Bone Regeneration: A Review of Current Treatment Strategies.

Raffaella De Pace, Silvia Molinari, Elisa Mazzoni, Giuseppe Perale

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Bioprinting of miRNA-Induced Spheroids for Vascularized, Heterocellular Bone Regeneration.Chemical engineering journal (Lausanne, Switzerland : 1996) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Epigenetic Connections in Malocclusion.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. DPHD fromACS omega · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Bone Fusion in the Cervical Spine: Where Are We Now?Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Raffaella De PaceDepartment of Chemical, Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Sciences, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy.ORCID 0009-0005-1485-8950
Silvia MolinariIndustrie Biomediche Insubri SA, Via Cantonale 67, 6805 Mezzovico-Vira, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0004-2046-8230
Elisa MazzoniDepartment of Chemical, Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Sciences, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy.
Giuseppe PeraleIndustrie Biomediche Insubri SA, Via Cantonale 67, 6805 Mezzovico-Vira, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone regeneration has emerged as a critical research and clinical advancement field, fueled by the growing demand for effective treatments in orthopedics and oncology. Over the past two decades, significant progress in biomaterials and surgical techniques has led to the development of novel solutions for treating bone defects, surpassing the use of traditional autologous grafts. This review aims to assess the latest approaches in bone regeneration, including autologous, allogenic, and xenogenic grafts, naturally derived biomaterials, and innovative synthetic substitutes such as bioceramics, bioactive glasses, metals, polymers, composite materials, and other specialized applications. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed, focusing on studies published between 2019 and 2024, including meta-analyses, reviews, and systematic reviews. The review evaluated a range of bone regeneration strategies, examining the clinical outcomes, materials used, surgical techniques, and the effectiveness of various approaches in treating bone defects. The search identified numerous studies, with the inclusion criteria focused on those exploring innovative bone regeneration strategies. These studies provided valuable insights into the clinical and biological outcomes of different biomaterials and graft types. Results indicated that while advancements in synthetic and naturally derived biomaterials show promising potential, challenges remain in optimizing therapeutic strategies across diverse patient populations and clinical settings. The findings emphasize the need for an integrated approach that combines scientific research, clinical practice, and technological innovation to improve bone regeneration therapies. Further research is required to establish standardized protocols and determine the optimal application of various materials and techniques to enhance patient outcomes and the quality of care.

Indexed as

bone graftsbone regenerationoncological surgeryoncologyorthopaedica surgeryorthopaedics

Identifiers

PMID40142646
PMCPMC11943102

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.