ArticleZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery2026
[Preparation and
Article in Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the effects of tannic acid (TA) doping on the physicochemical properties, biocompatibility, Methods: TA was incorporated into Brushite bone cement at concentrations of 0, 1.0, 3.0, 5.0, and 10.0 mg/g of solid powder, designated as Brushite, Brushite/TA-1, Brushite/TA-2, Brushite/TA-3, and Brushite/TA-4, respectively. The compressive strength and microstructure of each group were evaluated. The extracts of the bone cements were prepared and co-cultured with MC3T3-E1 cells. Cell proliferation was assessed using the cell counting kit 8 (CCK-8) assay. The cytotoxicity was observed by Calcein/propidium iodide live/dead cell staining. Cell adhesion was observed via scanning electron microscopy. After osteogenic induction, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity was measured and ALP staining was performed. The expression levels of osteogenic-related genes, including runt-related transcription factor 2 (Runx2), osteocalcin (OCN), osteopontin (OPN), collagen type Ⅰ (Col-Ⅰ), and integrin-binding sialoprotein (IBSP), were detected by real-time fluorescent quantitative PCR (qRT-PCR). The antibacterial activity of the bone cement against Results: Compared with the Brushite group, the Brushite/TA-3 and Brushite/TA-4 groups exhibited significantly increased compressive strength ( Conclusion: Doping with an appropriate concentration of TA (3.0-5.0 mg/g) improves the mechanical properties, cytocompatibility, and osteogenic activity of Brushite bone cement. A higher concentration (10.0 mg/g) confers antibacterial properties but may partially inhibit cell proliferation. TA-doped Brushite bone cement demonstrates good application potential in the field of bone defect repair.
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.