4.6 Article

Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Field (PEMF) Effect on Bone Healing in Animal Models: A Review of Its Efficacy Related to Different Type of Damage

Journal

BIOLOGY-BASEL
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biology11030402

Keywords

pulsed; electromagnetic; field; stimulation; PEMF; bone; healing; regeneration; damage

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) are a type of biophysical stimulation that have shown promising results in improving bone regeneration and preventing bone loss. However, there is limited understanding of the underlying biological mechanisms and the effects on bone healing. The variability in the characteristics of electromagnetic fields and the responsiveness of cells involved in bone healing pose challenges in drawing definitive conclusions. This review summarizes the current research on PEMF stimulation in animal models with bone impairment, highlighting the need for standardized experimental guidelines and further controlled trials.
Simple Summary Pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) are a type of biophysical stimulation that has been shown to be effective in improving bone regeneration and preventing bone loss. Their use dates back to the 1970s, but a gold standard treatment protocol has not yet been defined. PEMF efficacy relies on the generation of biopotentials, which activate several molecular pathways. There is currently no clear understanding of the effects on bone healing and, in addition, there are several animal models relevant to this issue. Therefore, drawing guidelines and conclusions from the analysis of the studies is difficult. In vivo investigations on PEMF stimulation are reviewed in this paper, focusing on molecular and morphological improvements in bone. Currently, there is little knowledge about the biological mechanism of PEMF and its effect on bone healing. This is due to the variability of crucial characteristics of electro-magnetic fields, such as amplitude and exposure frequency, which may influence the type of biological response. Furthermore, a different responsiveness of cells involved in the bone healing process is documented. Heterogeneous setting parameters and different outcome measures are considered in various animal models. Therefore, achieving comparable results is difficult. Biophysical energies are a versatile tool to stimulate tissues by generating biopotentials. In particular, pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation has intrigued researchers since the 1970s. To date, many investigations have been carried out in vivo, but a gold standard treatment protocol has not yet been defined. The main obstacles are represented by the complex setting of PEMF characteristics, the variety of animal models (including direct and indirect bone damage) and the lack of a complete understanding of the molecular pathways involved. In the present review the main studies about PEMF stimulation in animal models with bone impairment were reviewed. PEMF signal characteristics were investigated, as well as their effect on molecular pathways and osseous morphological features. We believe that this review might be a useful starting point for a prospective study in a clinical setting. Consistent evidence from the literature suggests a potential beneficial role of PEMF in clinical practice. Nevertheless, the wide variability of selected parameters (frequency, duration, and amplitude) and the heterogeneity of applied protocols make it difficult to draw certain conclusions about PEMF effectiveness in clinical implementation to promote bone healing. Deepening the knowledge regarding the most consistent results reported in literature to date, we believe that this review may be a useful starting point to propose standardized experimental guidelines. This might provide a solid base for further controlled trials, to investigate PEMF efficacy in bone damage conditions during routine clinical practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available