1. Based on review of publicly available materials at the time of this release.
2. Lehr MA, Oner CF, Delawi D, et al. Efficacy of a standalone microporous ceramic vs. autograft in instrumented posterolateral spinal fusion; a multicenter, randomized, intra-patient controlled, non-inferiority trial. Spine 2020;published ahead of print.
3. Walsh WR, Degroot F, Bertollo N, et al. Nanostructured TCP in rabbit posterolateral fusion compared to commercial osteobiologics. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2011 Annual Meeting. San Diego, CA, USA.
4. Ismailoglu AS, Vizesi F, Cunningham B, et al. Fibrillar collagen/ TCP scaffold in the sheep posterolateral fusion model. Society for Biomaterials Annual Meeting; 2012; New Orleans, LA, USA.
5. Fredericks DC, Smucker JD, Peterson EB, et al. Novel TCP compares favorably to autograft in posterolateral fusion: evaluation in rabbit and sheep models. International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Annual Conference; 2013; Vancouver, BC, Canada.
6. Barbieri D, Yuan H, Ismailoglu AS, et al. Comparison of two moldable calcium phosphate-based bone graft materials in a noninstrumented canine interspinous implantation model. Tissue Eng Part A 2017;23(23- 24):1310-20.
7. Yuan H, Fernandes H, Habibovic P, et al. Osteoinductive ceramics as a synthetic alternative to autologous bone grafting. PNAS 2010;107(31):13614-9.