Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Injectable bone cements for use in vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: State‐of‐the‐art review

Lewis, Gladius·2006·Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials

Abstract

Vertebroplasty (VP) and kyphoplasty (KP) are minimally invasive surgical procedures that have recently been introduced for the medical management of osteoporosis‐induced vertebral compression fractures. The aim of VP is to stabilize the fractured vertebral body, while the goals of KP are to stabilize the fractured vertebral body and to restore its height to as near its prefracture level as possible. Both procedures involve injection of the setting dough of an injectable bone cement (IBC) into the fractured vertebral body, thereby highlighting the indispensable role that the IBC plays. Although there is a very large literature on IBCs, no detailed critical review of it has been published. Such a review is the subject of the present work, which is in seven parts. The review opens with a succinct introduction to VP and KP. The topics covered in the parts that follow are: (1) a listing of the 18 most desirable properties of an IBC (e.g., easy injectability, high radiopacity, and a resorption rate that is neither too high nor too low); (2) descriptions of the four classes of IBCs (calcium phosphates, acrylic bone cements, calcium sulfates, and composites); (3) concerns that have been raised with regard to the use of IBCs (such as the potential for thermal necrosis of tissue at the peri‐augmentation site, when an acrylic bone cement is used); (4) explicative summaries of the main findings of literature studies on the influence of nine factors (such as powder particle size, powder‐to‐liquid ratio, and the method used to mix the powder and the liquid) on the values of various properties of IBCs; (5) explicative summaries of the main findings of literature studies on five fundamental matters, such as the aging mechanism of the powder, the thermokinetics of a setting dough, and the influence of the type of IBC used on various ex vivo biomechanical performance measures of VP‐ and KP‐augmented vertebral bodies; and (6) descriptions of topics in six areas for future research, such as the determination of an overall index of the fatigue performance of an IBC and the development of internationally recognized standardized testing protocols to employ when a synthetic cancellous bone void model is used in the rapid in vitro screening of IBCs. The review ends with a summary of the most salient points and observations made. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2006

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jbm.b.30398

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 46 references

Cited by

See all 280

Metadata

Authors
Lewis, G.
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-09-29
Volume
76B
Issue
2
Pages
456-468
ISSN
  • 1552-4973 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-4981
OpenAlex
W2011091784
Cited by
280
References
46
FWCI
8.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Injectable bone cements for use in vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: State‐of‐the‐art review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jbm.b.30398
The paper
Lewis, G. (2006). Injectable bone cements for use in vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: State‐of‐the‐art review. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.30398

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.