Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Bioactivity – Symphony or Cacophony?

Version 1 : Received: 26 January 2021 / Approved: 27 January 2021 / Online: 27 January 2021 (16:35:15 CET)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Darvell, B.W. Bioactivity—Symphony or Cacophony? A Personal View of a Tangled Field. Prosthesis 2021, 3, 75-84. Darvell, B.W. Bioactivity—Symphony or Cacophony? A Personal View of a Tangled Field. Prosthesis 2021, 3, 75-84.

Journal reference: Prosthesis 2021, 3, 8
DOI: 10.3390/prosthesis3010008

Abstract

In the pursuit of better treatments, the concept of a chemically-active material, responding to local conditions by causing reactions, or reacting to produce substances that are deemed beneficial, seems laudable. Ultimately, the goal appears to be to recruit natural biological processes such that a natural ‘repair’ is effected. This goal seems to be the reason for prefixing “bio-“ to many terms with a view to advertising the desire, yet without presenting evidence that it has occurred, or indeed that it is capable of occurring, relying instead on non-biological processes to justify the claims. The dogma is such that all work where local ‘responsive’ chemistry is involved must receive the label “bioactive” to legitimize and promote. Nevertheless, the primary evidence adduced is flawed, and the claim must fail. A rethink to restore scientific sense and confidence in the endeavour is essential if real progress is to be made.

Subject Areas

bioactivity; bone; dentistry

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.