Evidence Hub

Bioinorganic supplementation of calcium phosphate-based bone substitutes to improve in vivo performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies

Irene Lodoso-Torrecilla, Raquel Klein Gunnewiek, Eline-Claire Grosfeld, R. de Vries, P. Habibović, J. Jansen, J. J. van den Beucken

Biomaterials Science, 2020

20 citations

Abstract

Supplementation of CaP-based bone graft substitutes with bioinorganics such as strontium, zinc or silicon is an interesting approach to increase the biological performance in terms of bone regenerative potential of calcium phosphate (CaP)-based bone substitutes. However, the in vivo efficacy of this approach has not been systematically analyzed, yet. Consequently, we performed a systematic review using the available literature regarding the effect of bioinorganic supplementation in CaP-based biomaterials on new bone formation and material degradation in preclinical animal bone defect models and studied this effect quantitatively by performing a meta-analysis. Additional subgroup analyses were used to study the effect of different bioinorganics, animal model, or phase category of CaP-based biomaterial on bone formation or material degradation. Results show that bioinorganic supplementation increases new bone formation (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 1.43 SD, confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-1.73). Additional subgroup analysis showed that strontium, magnesium and silica significantly enhanced bone formation, while zinc did not have any effect. This effect of bioinorganic supplementation on new bone formation was stronger for DCPD or β-TCP and biphasic CaPs than for HA or α-TCP (p < 0.001). In general, material degradation was slightly hindered by bioinorganic supplementation (mean difference [MD]: 0.84%, CI: 0.01-1.66), with the exception of strontium that significantly…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free