Author: Mattia Di Bartolomeo1, Francesco Cavani2, Arrigo Pellacani1, Alexis Grande3, Roberta Salvatori4, Luigi Chiarini4, Riccardo Nocini5, Alexandre Anesi4
1 Unit of Dentistry and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Surgery, Dentistry, Maternity and Infant Department, University of Verona, P.le L.A. Scuro 10, 37134 Verona, Italy.
2 Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, Section of Human Morphology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Largo del Pozzo 71, 41125 Modena, Italy.
3 Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via Giuseppe Campi 287, 41125 Modena, Italy.
4 Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences for Children and Adults, Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Largo del Pozzo 71, 41124 Modena, Italy.
5 Section of Ear Nose and Throat (ENT), Department of Surgical Sciences, Dentistry, Gynecology and Pediatrics, University of Verona, 37129 Verona, Italy.
Conference/Journal: Biology (Basel)
Date published: 2022 Mar 5
Other: Volume ID: 11 , Issue ID: 3 , Pages: 402 , Special Notes: doi: 10.3390/biology11030402. , Word Count: 250
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.
Keywords: PEMF; bone; damage; electromagnetic; field; healing; pulsed; regeneration; stimulation.
PMID: 35336776 PMCID: PMC8945722 DOI: 10.3390/biology11030402