Abstract

Since the piezoelectric quality of bone was discovered in 1957, scientists have applied exogenous electrical stimulation for the purpose of healing. Despite the efforts made over the past 60 years, electronic bone growth stimulators are not in common clinical use. Reasons for this include high cost and lack of faith in the efficacy of bone growth stimulators on behalf of clinicians. The purpose of this narrative review is to examine the preclinical body of literature supporting electrical stimulation and its effect on bone properties and elucidate gaps in clinical translation with an emphasis on device specifications and mechanisms of action. When examining these studies, trends become apparent. In vitro and small animal studies are successful in inducing osteogenesis with all electrical stimulation modalities: direct current, pulsed electromagnetic field, and capacitive coupling. However, large animal studies are largely unsuccessful with the non-invasive modalities. This may be due to issues of scale and thickness of tissue planes with varying levels of resistivity, not present in small animal models. Additionally, it is difficult to draw conclusions from studies due to the varying units of stimulation strength and stimulation protocols and incomplete device specification reporting. To better understand the disconnect between the large and small animal model, the authors recommend increasing scientific rigor for these studies and reporting a novel minimum set of parameters depending on the stimulation modality.

Highlights

  • Since Fukada and Yasuda first described the piezoelectric property of bone and its relationship to bone formation (Fukada and Yasuda, 1957)—that bone generates endogenous electrical fields generated by ionically-driven currents in response to mechanical stress—there has been interest in applying exogenous electrical stimulation to stimulate bone healing

  • Mixed Results Demonstrated for capacitive coupling (CC) Small Animal Osteoporosis Models The majority of CC studies in small animals to date have been to examine the effect on osteoporotic bone loss

  • Shafer et al concludes that direct current electrical stimulation (DCES) is not effective in improving dental implant osseointegration, but Spadaro et al previously demonstrated that titanium cathodes require higher current density than what was applied in Shafer et al to be effective

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Since Fukada and Yasuda first described the piezoelectric property of bone and its relationship to bone formation (Fukada and Yasuda, 1957)—that bone generates endogenous electrical fields generated by ionically-driven currents in response to mechanical stress—there has been interest in applying exogenous electrical stimulation to stimulate bone healing. There are three modalities of electrical stimulation (ES): direct current electrical stimulation (DCES), capacitive coupling (CC), and inductive coupling. Direct current electrical stimulation is an invasive method of ES in which a cathode is placed directly in contact with the osseous injury. The anode is typically placed in nearby soft tissue, and the current runs between these two electrodes. Capacitive coupling is a noninvasive method of ES in which two electrodes are placed on the opposite sides of the bone, generating an electric field between them. Inductive coupling exists predominantly as pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy, a non-invasive methodology in which two solenoids are placed on opposite sides of the bone, parallel to the skin surface. Current is pulsed through the solenoids and generates a magnetic field between them. The magnetic field in turn, induces a perpendicular electric field in tissue

Objectives
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call