Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40792114›Full record

ReviewBioactive materials2025

Advancements in biomaterials and bioactive solutions for lumbar spine fusion cages: Current trends and future perspectives.

Iulian Antoniac, Veronica Manescu Paltanea, Gheorghe Paltanea, Aurora Antoniac, Marco Fosca, Dan Laptoiu, Julietta V Rau

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioactive materials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. A Review of Synthetic Bone Grafts in Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Iulian AntoniacFaculty of Material Science and Engineering, National University of Science and Technology Politehnica Bucharest, 313 Splaiul Independentei, District 6, RO-060042, Bucharest, Romania.
Veronica Manescu PaltaneaFaculty of Material Science and Engineering, National University of Science and Technology Politehnica Bucharest, 313 Splaiul Independentei, District 6, RO-060042, Bucharest, Romania.
Gheorghe PaltaneaFaculty of Electrical Engineering, National University of Science and Technology Politehnica Bucharest, 313 Splaiul Independentei, District 6, RO-060042, Bucharest, Romania.
Aurora AntoniacFaculty of Material Science and Engineering, National University of Science and Technology Politehnica Bucharest, 313 Splaiul Independentei, District 6, RO-060042, Bucharest, Romania.
Marco FoscaIstituto di Struttura della Materia, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (ISM-CNR), Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Dan LaptoiuDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma I, Colentina Clinical Hospital, 19-21 Soseaua Stefan cel Mare, RO-020125, Bucharest, Romania.
Julietta V RauIstituto di Struttura della Materia, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (ISM-CNR), Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100, 00133, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal fusion is considered today as the last treatment option for different spinal conditions, such as degenerative and infectious illnesses. It consists of fusing two or more vertebrae to obtain reinforcement/fixation based on several methods used to sustain osteosynthesis and grafting, such as cage insertion in the intervertebral space, which provides an important level of mechanical stability, impacting only a low amount of the natural biomechanics of the spine and facilitating the implant bony ingrowth. This review paper first explores the background of intervertebral fusion, emphasizing medical applications and material properties of interbody fusion cages. It then provides a brief historical overview and discusses antibacterial efficacy-related issues. Additionally, some of the most met-in-clinical practice lumbar interbody cages with a detailed description of their geometry and examples of clinical trials performed worldwide are provided. The biomaterials used in lumbar cage manufacture are comprehensively described. In the last part of this review paper, special attention is devoted to prospective biomaterials and coatings for spine fusion cages. Firstly, the rationale for using Mg-based alloys or high osteogenic polycaprolactone as biodegradable and bioresorbable alternatives in the spinal cage industry, addressing the clinical limitations of traditional Ti alloys and polyether ether ketone, is provided. Then, a more conservative approach, focusing on the use of bioactive or antibacterial coatings on the already certified biomaterials, is presented as a second alternative to the existing products on the market. Relevant literature studies are reviewed, and the osteointegrative, bioactive, or antibacterial character of the coatings is explained. Finally, our review identifies current clinical limitations and offers future perspectives that will provide better bioactive solutions, improving the existing biomaterials.

Indexed as

Bioactive solutionsBiodegradable cagesClinical trialsHigh osteogenic polycaprolactoneMg-based alloysSpinal fusion

Identifiers

PMID40792114
PMCPMC12337673

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.