↓ Skip to main content

Bone augmentation using a new injectable bone graft substitute by combining calcium phosphate and bisphosphonate as composite—an animal model

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bone augmentation using a new injectable bone graft substitute by combining calcium phosphate and bisphosphonate as composite—an animal model
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13018-015-0263-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carsten W. Schlickewei, Georg Laaff, Anne Andresen, Till O. Klatte, Johannes M. Rueger, Johannes Ruesing, Matthias Epple, Wolfgang Lehmann

Abstract

The aim of this study was to create a new injectable bone graft substitute by combining the features of calcium phosphate and bisphosphonate as a composite bone graft to support bone healing and to evaluate the effect of alendronate to the bone healing process in an animal model. In this study, 24 New Zealand white rabbits were randomly divided into two groups: a calcium phosphate alendronate group and a calcium phosphate control group. A defect was created at the proximal medial tibia and filled with the new created injectable bone graft substitute calcium phosphate alendronate or with calcium phosphate. Healing process was documented by fluoroscopy. To evaluate the potential of the bone graft substitute, the proximal tibia was harvested 2, 4, and 12 weeks after operation. Histomorphological analysis was focused on the evaluation of the dynamic bone parameters using the Osteomeasure system. Radiologically, the bone graft materials were equally absorbed. No fracture was documented. The bones healed normally. After 2 weeks, the histological analysis showed an increased new bone formation for both materials. The osteoid volume per bone volume (OV/BV) was significantly higher for the calcium phosphate group. After 4 weeks, the results were almost equal. The trabecular thickness (Tb.Th) increased in comparison to week 2 in both groups with a slight advantage for the calcium phosphate group. The total mass of the bone graft (KEM.Ar) and the bone graft substitute surface density (KEM.Pm) were consistently decreasing. After 12 weeks, the new bone volume per tissue volume (BV/TV) was still constantly growing. Both bone grafts show a good integration. New bone was formed on the surface of both bone grafts. The calcium phosphate as well as the calcium phosphate alendronate paste had been enclosed by the bone. The trabecular thickness was higher in both groups compared to the first time point. Calcium phosphate proved its good potential as a bone graft substitute. Initially, the diagrams seem to show a tendency that alendronate improves the known properties of calcium phosphate as a bone graft substitute. The composite graft induced a good and constant new bone formation. Not only the graft was incorporated into the bone but also a new bone was formed on its surface. But we could not prove a significant difference between the grafts. Both implants proved their function as a bone graft substitute, but the bisphosphonate alendronate does not support the bone healing process sufficiently that the known properties of calcium phosphate as a bone graft substitute were improved in the sense of a composite graft. In this study, alendronate used as a bone graft in a healthy bony environment did not influence the bone healing process in a positive or negative way.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 14 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 28%
Materials Science 5 10%
Engineering 4 8%
Physics and Astronomy 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 15 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,340,005
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#646
of 1,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,781
of 263,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#22
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.