The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Osteoinductivity of Commercially Available Demineralized Bone Matrix: Preparations in a Spine Fusion Model
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although autogenous bone is the most widely used graft material for spinal fusion, demineralized bone matrix preparations are available as alternatives or supplements to autograft. They are prepared by acid extraction of most of the mineralized component, with retention of the collagen and noncollagenous proteins, including growth factors. Differences in allograft processing methods among suppliers might yield products with different osteoinductive activities. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of three different commercially available demineralized bone matrix products for inducing spinal fusion in an athymic rat model. METHODS: Sixty male athymic rats underwent spinal fusion and were divided into three groups of eighteen animals each. Group I received Grafton Putty; Group II, DBX Putty; and Group III, AlloMatrix Injectable Putty. A control group of six animals (Group IV) underwent decortication alone. Six animals from each of the three experimental groups were killed at each of three intervals (two, four, and eight weeks), and the six animals from the control group were killed at eight weeks. At each of the time-points, radiographic and histologic analysis and manual testing of the explanted spines were performed. RESULTS: The spines in Group I demonstrated higher rates of radiographically evident fusion at eight weeks than did the spines in Group III or Group IV (p < 0.05). Manual testing of the spines at four weeks revealed variable fusion rates (five of six in Group I, two of six in Group II, and none of six in Group III). At eight weeks, all six spines in Group I, three of the six in Group II, and no spine in Group III or IV had fused. Histologic analysis of the spines in Groups I, II, and III demonstrated varying amounts of residual demineralized bone matrix and new bone formation. Group-I spines demonstrated the most new bone formation. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated differences in the osteoinductive potentials of commercially available demineralized bone matrices in this animal model.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Baldwin, P., Li, D. J., Auston, D. A., Mir, H. S., Yoon, R. S., & Koval, K. J. (2019) · Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma · doi:10.1097/bot.0000000000001420 · Cited by 773
Demineralized bone matrix in bone repair: History and use
Gruskin, E., Doll, B. A., Futrell, F. W., Schmitz, J. P., & Hollinger, J. O. (2012) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2012.06.008 · Cited by 473
The use of bone-graft substitutes in large bone defects: Any specific needs?
Calori, G. M., Mazza, E., Colombo, M., & Ripamonti, C. (2011) · Injury · doi:10.1016/j.injury.2011.06.011 · Cited by 435
FDA-approved bone grafts and bone graft substitute devices in bone regeneration
Gillman, C. E., & Jayasuriya, A. C. (2021) · Materials Science and Engineering: C · doi:10.1016/j.msec.2021.112466 · Cited by 417
Extracellular matrix hydrogel therapies: In vivo applications and development
Spang, M. T., & Christman, K. L. (2018) · Acta Biomaterialia · doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2017.12.019 · Cited by 304
Metadata
- Authors
- Peterson, B., Whang, P. G., Iglesias, R., Wang, J. C., & Lieberman, J. R.
- Venue
- The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
- Published
- 2004-10
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2243-2250
- ISSN
- 0021-9355 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1631732630
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.08
- 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: Osteoinductivity of Commercially Available Demineralized Bone Matrix: Preparations in a Spine Fusion Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2106/00004623-200410000-00016
- The paper
- Peterson, B., Whang, P. G., Iglesias, R., Wang, J. C., & Lieberman, J. R. (2004). Osteoinductivity of Commercially Available Demineralized Bone Matrix: Preparations in a Spine Fusion Model. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200410000-00016
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.