Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40243725›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2025

Bone Defect Treatment in Regenerative Medicine: Exploring Natural and Synthetic Bone Substitutes.

Angelo Santoro, Andrea Voto, Luigi Fortino, Raffaella Guida, Carolina Laudisio, Mariarosaria Cillo, Anna Maria D'Ursi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Angelo SantoroDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9690-907X
Andrea VotoDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, AORN "San Giuseppe Moscati", 83100 Avellino, Italy.
Luigi FortinoScuola di Specializzazione in Farmacia Ospedaliera, Department of Pharmacy, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Italy.ORCID 0009-0007-7332-6596
Raffaella GuidaPresidio Ospedaliero "Villa Malta" di Sarno, Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Salerno, 84087 Sarno, Italy.
Carolina LaudisioPresidio Ospedaliero "Villa Malta" di Sarno, Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Salerno, 84087 Sarno, Italy.
Mariarosaria CilloDipartimento Farmaceutico, Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Salerno, 84124 Salerno, Italy.
Anna Maria D'UrsiDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, the management of bone defects in regenerative medicine and orthopedic surgery has been the subject of extensive research efforts. The complexity of fractures and bone loss arising from trauma, degenerative conditions, or congenital disorders necessitates innovative therapeutic strategies to promote effective healing. Although bone tissue exhibits an intrinsic regenerative capacity, extensive fractures and critical-sized defects can severely compromise this process, often requiring bone grafts or substitutes. Tissue engineering approaches within regenerative medicine have introduced novel possibilities for addressing nonunions and challenging bone defects refractory to conventional treatment methods. Key components in this field include stem cells, bioactive growth factors, and biocompatible scaffolds, with a strong focus on advancements in bone substitute materials. Both natural and synthetic substitutes present distinct characteristics and applications. Natural grafts-comprising autologous, allogeneic, and xenogeneic materials-offer biological advantages, while synthetic alternatives, including biodegradable and non-biodegradable biomaterials, provide structural versatility and reduced immunogenicity. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the diverse bone grafting alternatives utilized in orthopedic surgery, emphasizing recent advancements and persistent challenges. By exploring both natural and synthetic bone substitutes, this work offers an in-depth examination of cutting-edge solutions, fostering further research and innovation in the treatment of complex bone defects.

Indexed as

Bone DiseasesBone RegenerationBone SubstitutesRegenerative MedicineAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsBone and BonesBone TransplantationHumansTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsBiocompatible MaterialsBone Substitutesbone regenerationbone substitutesfracture healingscaffold biomaterialstissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID40243725
PMCPMC11988823

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.