ReviewJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Whitlockite as a next-generation biomaterial for bone regeneration: A systematic review of
Review in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Whitlockite (WH), a magnesium-enriched calcium phosphate mineral, is emerging as a promising biomaterial in bone tissue engineering due to its chemical similarity to natural bone and dual role in promoting osteogenesis and regulating bone resorption. Compared to conventional materials like hydroxyapatite (HA) and β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), WH offers higher solubility, superior ion release (notably Mg Objective: This systematic review evaluates the in vivo efficacy of WH-based biomaterials in bone regeneration. Key outcomes include bone volume fraction (BV/TV), bone mineral density (BMD), osteogenic marker expression, and histological bone quality. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central was conducted up to March 2025. Eligible studies assessed WH-based materials in animal bone defect models with quantifiable regenerative outcomes. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and quality assessment using the SYRCLE Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to significant heterogeneity across models, scaffold types, and endpoints. Results: Seventeen animal studies (rats, mice, rabbits) met inclusion criteria. WH was used in forms such as nanoparticles, granules, and scaffolds with polymers like chitosan and gelatin. WH consistently outperformed HA and β-TCP with up to a 2-6 % increase in BV/TV, BMD, and histological bone formation. Upregulation of ALP, OCN, RUNX2, and COL1 was observed. Doped WH variants and composites enhanced osteoinductive and angiogenic responses. No adverse effects were reported. Conclusion: WH demonstrates superior osteogenic and biocompatible properties over traditional calcium phosphates. Future standardized, long-term studies are needed to support clinical translation for orthopedic and dental bone regeneration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.