Cited by 667Bone Tissue Engineering MaterialsConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchMicrobial Applications in Construction Materials

Calcium phosphate cements for bone substitution: Chemistry, handling and mechanical properties

Zhang, Jingtao, Liu, Weizhen, Schnitzler, Verena, Tancret, Franck, Bouler, Jean-Michel·2014·Acta Biomaterialia

Abstract

Since their initial formulation in the 1980s, calcium phosphate cements (CPCs) have been increasingly used as bone substitutes. This article provides an overview on the chemistry, kinetics of setting and handling properties (setting time, cohesion and injectability) of CPCs for bone substitution, with a focus on their mechanical properties. Many processing parameters, such as particle size, composition of cement reactants and additives, can be adjusted to control the setting process of CPCs, concomitantly influencing their handling and mechanical performance. Moreover, this review shows that, although the mechanical strength of CPCs is generally low, it is not a critical issue for their application for bone repair--an observation not often realized by researchers and clinicians. CPCs with compressive strengths comparable to those of cortical bones can be produced through densification and/or homogenization of the cement matrix. The real limitation for CPCs appears to be their low fracture toughness and poor mechanical reliability (Weibull modulus), which have so far been only rarely studied.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.11.001

Cites

202 of 202 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Autologous bone grafting remains the gold standard for bone regenerative repair due to its superior osteogenic potential and the absence of immune rejection.

    “Despite advances in clinical practices, autologous bone grafting remains the gold standard for bone regenerative repair due to its superior osteogenic potential and the absence of immune rejection [2].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 205 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, J., Liu, W., Schnitzler, V., Tancret, F., & Bouler, J.-M.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Institut des Matériaux Jean Rouxel (FR)
Corresponding author
Bouler, Jean-Michel
Venue
Acta Biomaterialia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-03
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
1035-1049
ISSN
1742-7061 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1996760356
Cited by
667
References
205
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 76 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 11
FWCI
2.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Biomaterialia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Concrete and Cement Materials Research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Microbial Applications in Construction Materials
Keywords
calcium phosphate cement, bone substitutes, setting kinetics, setting time, injectability, cohesion, mechanical properties, compressive strength, fracture toughness, Weibull modulus, densification, homogenization, particle size, bone regeneration
MeSH terms
Bone Cements, Calcium Phosphates, Humans, Kinetics, Bone Substitutes, Mechanical Phenomena

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