Electric/Magnetic Intervention for Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
- PMID: 36170583
- DOI: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2022.0127
Electric/Magnetic Intervention for Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Electric/magnetic material or field is a promising strategy for bone regeneration. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to analyze the evidence regarding the efficacy of electric and magnetic intervention for bone regeneration and provide directions for further research. A comprehensive search was performed to identify the rats/rabbits/mice research that involved the electric/magnetic treatment with quantitative radiographic assessment of bone formation. Network meta-analyses were also conducted to assess different interventions and outcomes for osteogenesis. In total, there were 51 articles included in the systematic review and 19 articles in the network meta-analyses. The majority used microcomputerized tomography bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV) to evaluate outcomes in rats. Results showed that placing electric/magnetic materials in situ had more prominent effects than the electric/magnetic field on bone regeneration. For all species, electrical materials with zeta potential of -53 mV proved to be the most effective in increasing BV (mean difference [MD]: 4.20 mm3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.72-6.68]) and bone mineral density (MD: 312 mg/cm3, 95% CI: [172.43-451.57]). Magnetic materials with external magnetic fields topped in BV/TV (MD: 43%, 95% CI: [36.04-49.96]). It also led in trabecular number (MD: 2.00 mm-1, 95% CI: [1.45-2.55]), trabecular thickness (MD: 61.00 μm, 95% CI: [44.31- 77.69]), and trabecular separation (MD: -0.40 mm, 95% CI: [-0.56 to -0.24]) on the condition of lacking electric materials. Biomaterials implantation is the most effective method for stimulating osteogenesis in rats, especially in electrical materials with negative charge. The combination of diverse interventions shows promising effects but needs further research, so does the underlying mechanism. Impact Statement Bone defect, especially for the large defect from aging, trauma, or pathology, which cannot be completely healed, remains a clinical challenge. Mimicking physical microenvironment has emerged as a new strategy for tissue regeneration. Electric and magnetic material and field used as the physical stimulation for bone regeneration have attracted interest due to their potential and facile application in clinic. This article reviewed related animal studies and carried out a network meta-analysis to thoroughly understand how electric and magnetic interventions impacted on tissues and created an osteogenic microenvironment.
Keywords: bone remodeling/regeneration; electric stimulation; magnetic intervention; network meta-analysis; tissue engineering.
Similar articles
-
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluating the efficacy of human dental pulp stem cells and scaffold combination for bone regeneration in animal models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Stem Cell Res Ther. 2023 May 15;14(1):132. doi: 10.1186/s13287-023-03357-w. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2023. PMID: 37189187 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of Local Delivery of Vancomycin and Tobramycin on Bone Regeneration.Orthop Surg. 2021 Jul;13(5):1654-1661. doi: 10.1111/os.13020. Epub 2021 Jun 14. Orthop Surg. 2021. PMID: 34124847 Free PMC article.
-
Systemic therapy of MSCs in bone regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Stem Cell Res Ther. 2021 Jul 2;12(1):377. doi: 10.1186/s13287-021-02456-w. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2021. PMID: 34215342 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The influence of acetylsalicylic acid on bone regeneration: systematic review and meta-analysis.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 Dec;59(10):E1-E16. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.08.051. Epub 2020 Aug 19. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021. PMID: 34736809 Review.
Cited by
-
A review of tumor treating fields (TTFields): advancements in clinical applications and mechanistic insights.Radiol Oncol. 2023 Sep 4;57(3):279-291. doi: 10.2478/raon-2023-0044. eCollection 2023 Sep 1. Radiol Oncol. 2023. PMID: 37665740 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Unlocking the potential of stimuli-responsive biomaterials for bone regeneration.Front Pharmacol. 2024 Jul 31;15:1437457. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1437457. eCollection 2024. Front Pharmacol. 2024. PMID: 39144636 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources