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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CanceddaR, GiannoniP, MastrogiacomoM. A tissue engineering approach to bone repair in large animal models and in clinical practice. Biomaterials, 2007; 28(29):4240–4250.
2.
HuangX, DasR, PatelA, et al.Physical stimulations for bone and cartilage regeneration. Regen Eng Transl Med, 2018; 4(4):216–237.
3.
FukadaE, YasudaI. On the piezoelectric effect of bone. J Phys Soc Japan, 2007; 12(10):1158–1162.
4.
LimHL, ChuangJC, TranT, et al.Dynamic electromechanical hydrogel matrices for stem cell culture. Adv Funct Mater, 2011; 21(1): 10.1002/adfm.201001519.
5.
LimK, HexiuJ, KimJ, et al.Effects of electromagnetic fields on osteogenesis of human alveolar bone-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Biomed Res Int, 2013; 2013:296019.
KhalifehJM, ZohnyZ, MacEwanM, et al.Electrical stimulation and bone healing: A review of current technology and clinical applications. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng, 2018; 11:217–232.
8.
LeppikL, OliveiraKMC, BhavsarMB, et al.Electrical stimulation in bone tissue engineering treatments. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2020; 46(2):231–244.
9.
BeckerRO. Stimulation of partial limb regeneration in rats. Nature, 1972; 235(5333):109–111.
10.
KhareD, BasuB, DubeyAK. Electrical stimulation and piezoelectric biomaterials for bone tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials, 2020; 258:120280.
11.
CochranGV. Experimental methods for stimulation of bone healing by means of electrical energy. Bull N Y Acad Med, 1972; 48(7):899–911.
12.
CookJJ, SummersNJ, CookEA. Healing in the new millennium: Bone stimulators: An overview of where we've been and where we may be heading. Clin Podiatr Med Surg, 2015; 32(1):45–59.
13.
BassettCA, PawlukRJ, PillaAA. Augmentation of bone repair by inductively coupled electromagnetic fields. Science, 1974; 184(4136):575–577.
14.
YuS, ShangP. A review of bioeffects of static magnetic field on rodent models. Prog Biophys Mol Biol, 2014; 114(1):14–24.
15.
HeY, YuL, LiuJ, et al.Enhanced osteogenic differentiation of human bone-derived mesenchymal stem cells in 3-dimensional printed porous titanium scaffolds by static magnetic field through up-regulating Smad4. FASEB J, 2019; 33(5):6069–6081.
16.
WangJ, XiangB, DengJ, et al.Inhibition of viability, proliferation, cytokines secretion, surface antigen expression, and adipogenic and osteogenic differentiation of adipose-derived stem cells by seven-day exposure to 0.5 t static magnetic fields. Stem Cells Int, 2016; 2016:7168175.
17.
WilliamsDF. The biomaterials conundrum in tissue engineering. Tissue Eng Part A, 2014; 20(7–8):1129–1131.
18.
ZhaoY, FanT, ChenJ, et al.Magnetic bioinspired micro/nanostructured composite scaffold for bone regeneration. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 2019; 174:70–79.
19.
LiberatiA, AltmanDG, TetzlaffJ, et al.The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 2009; 339:b2700.
20.
CiprianiA, FurukawaTA, SalantiG, et al.Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet, 2018; 391(10128):1357–1366.
21.
ZhangH, GanL, ZhuX, et al.Moderate-intensity 4mT static magnetic fields prevent bone architectural deterioration and strength reduction by stimulating bone formation in streptozotocin-treated diabetic rats. Bone, 2018; 107:36–44.
22.
DaiX, HengBC, BaiY, et al.Restoration of electrical microenvironment enhances bone regeneration under diabetic conditions by modulating macrophage polarization. Bioact Mater, 2021; 6(7):2029–2038.
23.
JingD, CaiJ, ShenG, et al.The preventive effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on diabetic bone loss in streptozotocin-treated rats. Osteoporos Int, 2011; 22(6):1885–1895.
24.
CaiJ, LiW, SunT, et al.Pulsed electromagnetic fields preserve bone architecture and mechanical properties and stimulate porous implant osseointegration by promoting bone anabolism in type 1 diabetic rabbits. Osteoporos Int, 2018; 29(5):1177–1191.
25.
DuanL, ZuoJ, ZhangF, et al.Magnetic targeting of HU-MSCs in the treatment of glucocorticoid-associated osteonecrosis of the femoral head through Akt/Bcl2/Bad/Caspase-3 pathway. Int J Nanomed, 2020; 15:3605–3620.
26.
AndrojnaC, YeeCS, WhiteCR, et al.A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats. Bone, 2021; 143:115761.
27.
LiB, BiJ, LiW, et al.Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on histomorphometry and osteocalcin in disuse osteoporosis rats. Technol Health Care, 2017; 25(S1):13–20.
28.
JingD, CaiJ, WuY, et al.Pulsed electromagnetic fields partially preserve bone mass, microarchitecture, and strength by promoting bone formation in hindlimb-suspended rats. J Bone Miner Res, 2014; 29(10):2250–2261.
29.
TamakiH, TomoriK, YotaniK, et al.Electrical stimulation of denervated rat skeletal muscle retards trabecular bone loss in early stages of disuse musculoskeletal atrophy. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact, 2014; 14(2):220–228.
30.
LauYC, QianX, PoKT, et al.Electrical stimulation at the dorsal root ganglion preserves trabecular bone mass and microarchitecture of the tibia in hindlimb-unloaded rats. Osteoporos Int, 2015; 26(2):481–488.
31.
PanX, XiaoD, ZhangX, et al.Study of rotating permanent magnetic field to treat steroid-induced osteonecrosis of femoral head. Int Orthop, 2009; 33(3):617–623.
32.
CaiJ, ShaoX, YangQ, et al.Pulsed electromagnetic fields modify the adverse effects of glucocorticoids on bone architecture, bone strength and porous implant osseointegration by rescuing bone-anabolic actions. Bone, 2020; 133:115266.
33.
Schmidt-MalanSM, BrinkmanCL, KarauMJ, et al.Effect of direct electrical current on bones infected with Staphylococcus epidermidis. JBMR Plus, 2019; 3(5):e10119.
34.
YangJ, ZhouS, WeiM, et al.Moderate static magnetic fields prevent bone architectural deterioration and strength reduction in ovariectomized mice. IEEE Trans Magn, 2021; 57(7):1–9.
35.
FuYC, LinCC, ChangJK, et al.A novel single pulsed electromagnetic field stimulates osteogenesis of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells and bone repair. PLoS One, 2014; 9(3):e91581.
36.
YangJ, WangS, ZhangG, et al.Static Magnetic Field (2–4 T) Improves bone microstructure and mechanical properties by coordinating osteoblast/osteoclast differentiation in mice. Bioelectromagnetics, 2021; 42(3):200–211.
37.
YuB, QiaoZ, CuiJ, et al.A host-coupling bio-nanogenerator for electrically stimulated osteogenesis. Biomaterials, 2021; 276:120997.
38.
LiuW, ZhangF, YanY, et al.Remote tuning of built-in magnetoelectric microenvironment to promote bone regeneration by modulating cellular exposure to arginylglycylaspartic acid peptide. Adv Funct Mater, 2020; 31(6):2006226.
39.
ZhangC, LiuW, CaoC, et al.Modulating surface potential by controlling the beta phase content in poly(vinylidene fluoridetrifluoroethylene) membranes enhances bone regeneration. Adv Healthc Mater, 2018; 7(11):e1701466.
40.
LiuY, ZhangX, CaoC, et al.Built-in electric fields dramatically induce enhancement of osseointegration. Adv Funct Mater, 2017; 27(47):1703771.
41.
ZhouJ, GaoYH, ZhuBY, et al.Sinusoidal electromagnetic fields increase peak bone mass in rats by activating Wnt10b/beta-catenin in primary cilia of osteoblasts. J Bone Miner Res, 2019; 34(7):1336–1351.
42.
NozakiK, WangW, HoriuchiN, et al.Enhanced osteoconductivity of titanium implant by polarization-induced surface charges. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2014; 102(9):3077–3086.
43.
FanB, GuoZ, LiX, et al.Electroactive barium titanate coated titanium scaffold improves osteogenesis and osseointegration with low-intensity pulsed ultrasound for large segmental bone defects. Bioact Mater, 2020; 5(4):1087–1101.
44.
NaitoY, YamadaS, JinnoY, et al.Bone-forming effect of a static magnetic field in rabbit femurs. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2019; 39(2):259–264.
45.
O'LoughlinPF, MorrS, BogunovicL, et al.Selection and development of preclinical models in fracture-healing research. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2008; 90Suppl 1:79–84.
46.
HornerEA, KirkhamJ, WoodD, et al.Long bone defect models for tissue engineering applications: Criteria for choice. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2010; 16(2):263–271.
47.
ZoetisT, TassinariMS, BagiC, et al.Species comparison of postnatal bone growth and development. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol, 2003; 68(2):86–110.
48.
StubingerS, DardM. The rabbit as experimental model for research in implant dentistry and related tissue regeneration. J Invest Surg, 2013; 26(5):266–282.
49.
PearceAI, RichardsRG, MilzS, et al.Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: A review. Eur Cell Mater, 2007; 13:1–10.
50.
OlthofMGL, KempenDHR, LiuX, et al.Effect of biomaterial electrical charge on bone morphogenetic protein-2-induced in vivo bone formation. Tissue Eng Part A, 2019; 25(13–14):1037–1052.
51.
OliveiraKMC, BarkerJH, BerezikovE, et al.Electrical stimulation shifts healing/scarring towards regeneration in a rat limb amputation model. Sci Rep, 2019; 9(1):11433.
52.
BrightonCT, WangW, SeldesR, et al.Signal transduction in electrically stimulated bone cells. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2001; 83(10):1514–1523.
53.
KimC, YangHJ, ChoTH, et al.Implantable electrical stimulation bioreactor with liquid crystal polymer-based electrodes for enhanced bone regeneration at mandibular large defects in rabbit. Med Biol Eng Comput, 2020; 58(2):383–399.
54.
TuC, ChenJ, HuangC, et al.Effects of electromagnetic fields treatment on rat critical-sized calvarial defects with a 3D-printed composite scaffold. Stem Cell Res Ther, 2020; 11(1):433.
55.
OkadaR, YamatoK, KawakamiM, et al.Low magnetic field promotes recombinant human BMP-2-induced bone formation and influences orientation of trabeculae and bone marrow-derived stromal cells. Bone Rep, 2021; 14:100757.
56.
AydinN, BezerM. The effect of an intramedullary implant with a static magnetic field on the healing of the osteotomised rabbit femur. Int Orthop, 2011; 35(1):135–141.
57.
KotaniH, KawaguchiH, ShimoakaT, et al.Strong static magnetic field stimulates bone formation to a definite orientation in vitro and in vivo. J Bone Mineral Res, 2002; 17(10):1814–1821.
58.
BouxseinML, BoydSK, ChristiansenBA, et al.Guidelines for assessment of bone microstructure in rodents using micro-computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res, 2010; 25(7):1468–1486.
59.
ReddyMS, MorganSL. Decreased bone mineral density and periodontal management. Periodontol 2000, 2013; 61(1):195–218.
60.
O'BrienFJ. Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Today, 2011; 14(3):88–95.
61.
WangX, XuS, ZhouS, et al.Topological design and additive manufacturing of porous metals for bone scaffolds and orthopaedic implants: A review. Biomaterials, 2016; 83:127–141.
62.
NingC, YuP, ZhuY, et al.Built-in microscale electrostatic fields induced by anatase-rutile-phase transition in selective areas promote osteogenesis. NPG Asia Mater, 2016; 8.
63.
ZhangX, ZhangC, LinY, et al.Nanocomposite membranes enhance bone regeneration through restoring physiological electric microenvironment. ACS Nano, 2016; 10(8):7279–7286.
64.
YaoG, KangL, LiC, et al. A self-powered implantable and bioresorbable electrostimulation device for biofeedback bone fracture healing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2021;118(28).
65.
BandyopadhyayA, ShivaramA, MitraI, et al.Electrically polarized TiO2 nanotubes on Ti implants to enhance early-stage osseointegration. Acta Biomater, 2019; 96:686–693.
66.
OharaM, ItohS, FujiwaraH, et al.Efficacy of electrical polarization on a rat femoral bone defect model with a custom-made external fixator. Biomed Mater Eng, 2019; 30(5-6):475–486.
67.
MiduraRJ, IbiwoyeMO, PowellKA, et al.Pulsed electromagnetic field treatments enhance the healing of fibular osteotomies. J Orthop Res, 2005; 23(5):1035–1046.
68.
JazayeriM, ShokrgozarMA, HaghighipourN, et al.Effects of electromagnetic stimulation on gene expression of mesenchymal stem cells and repair of bone lesions. Cell J, 2017; 19(1):34–44.
69.
XuS, TomitaN, OhataR, et al.Static magnetic field effects on bone formation of rats with an ischemic bone model. Biomed Mater Eng, 2001; 11(3):257–263.
70.
WuD, ChangX, TianJ, et al.Bone mesenchymal stem cells stimulation by magnetic nanoparticles and a static magnetic field: release of exosomal miR-1260a improves osteogenesis and angiogenesis. J Nanobiotechnol, 2021; 19(1):209.
71.
HwangSJ, ChoTH, LeeB, et al.Bone-healing capacity of conditioned medium derived from three-dimensionally cultivated human mesenchymal stem cells and electrical stimulation on collagen sponge. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2018; 106(2):311–320.
72.
YaoQ, LiuH, LinX, et al.3D Interpenetrated graphene foam/58S bioactive glass scaffolds for electrical-stimulation-assisted differentiation of rabbit mesenchymal stem cells to enhance bone regeneration. J Biomed Nanotechnol, 2019; 15(3):602–611.
73.
ZhouR, HanY, CaoJ, et al.Enhanced osseointegration of hierarchically structured Ti implant with electrically bioactive SnO2-TiO2 bilayered surface. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2018; 10(36):30191–30200.
74.
FiniM, CadossiR, CaneV, et al.The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the osteointegration of hydroxyapatite implants in cancellous bone: a morphologic and microstructural in vivo study. J Orthop Res, 2002; 20(4):756–763.
75.
MatsumotoH, OchiM, AbikoY, et al.Pulsed electromagnetic fields promote bone formation around dental implants inserted into the femur of rabbits. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2000; 11(4):354–360.
76.
WangH, TangX, LiW, et al.Enhanced osteogenesis of bone marrow stem cells cultured on hydroxyapatite/collagen I scaffold in the presence of low-frequency magnetic field. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2019; 30(8):89.
77.
BambiniF, SantarelliA, PutignanoA, et al.Use of supercharged cover screw as static magnetic field generator for bone healing, 2nd part: in vivo enhancement of bone regeneration in rabbits. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents, 2017; 31(2):481–485.
78.
XuD, ZhangT, QuJ, et al.Enhanced patella-patellar tendon healing using combined magnetic fields in a rabbit model. Am J Sports Med, 2014; 42(10):2495–2501.
ShuaiC, YangW, HeC, et al.A magnetic micro-environment in scaffolds for stimulating bone regeneration. Mater Des, 2020; 185.
81.
MengJ, XiaoB, ZhangY, et al.Super-paramagnetic responsive nanofibrous scaffolds under static magnetic field enhance osteogenesis for bone repair in vivo. Sci Rep, 2013; 3:2655.
82.
KimJ, YangHJ, ChoTH, et al.Enhanced regeneration of rabbit mandibular defects through a combined treatment of electrical stimulation and rhBMP-2 application. Med Biol Eng Comput, 2013; 51(12):1339–1348.
83.
KawamotoK, KimWC, TsuchidaY, et al.Effects of alternating current electrical stimulation on lengthening callus. J Pediatr Orthop B, 2005; 14(4):299–302.
84.
BrettE, ZielinsER, LuanA, et al.Magnetic nanoparticle-based upregulation of B-Cell lymphoma 2 enhances bone regeneration. Stem Cells Transl Med, 2017; 6(1):151–160.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
