ArticleJournal of anatomy2011
Cell replication in craniofacial periosteum: appositional vs. resorptive sites.
Article in Journal of anatomy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cranial suture lineage and contributions to repair of the mouse skull.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2024Article
- Matrix stiffness regulates osteoclast fate through integrin-dependent mechanotransduction.Bioactive materials · 2023Article
- Sialylation of TLR2 initiates osteoclast fusion.Bone research · 2022Article
- Periosteal Skeletal Stem Cells and Their Response to Bone Injury.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Review
- Harmine targets inhibitor of DNA binding-2 and activator protein-1 to promote preosteoclast PDGF-BB production.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2021Article
- Extracellular vesicles in bone: "dogrobbers" in the "eternal battle field".Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2019Review
- Signaling Mechanisms Underlying Genetic Pathophysiology of Craniosynostosis.International journal of biological sciences · 2019Review
- Craniofacial Tissue Engineering.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2018Review
- Calvarial Suture-Derived Stem Cells and Their Contribution to Cranial Bone Repair.Frontiers in physiology · 2017Review
- Sutures Possess Strong Regenerative Capacity for Calvarial Bone Injury.Stem cells and development · 2016Article
- Article
- The suture provides a niche for mesenchymal stem cells of craniofacial bones.Nature cell biology · 2015Article
- Osteogenic and Neurogenic Stem Cells in Their Own Place: Unraveling Differences and Similarities Between Niches.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2015Review
- PDGF-BB secreted by preosteoclasts induces angiogenesis during coupling with osteogenesis.Nature medicine · 2014Article
- Periosteum: biology and applications in craniofacial bone regeneration.Journal of dental research · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The size and the shape of craniofacial bones results from periosteal activity, which can be either appositional or resorptive. The periosteum is often used as a source of graft material for osteogenesis, but differences in cellular makeup and proliferative capacity may render resorptive regions unsuitable for transplant. This study was undertaken to characterize the cells in appositional and resorptive periosteum, and to assess variation in proliferative activity. Young pigs (n=9) were injected with bromodeoxyuridine to label replicating cells and killed 3h later. The mandibular ramus, hard palate and zygomatic arch were examined for patterns of periosteal activity, and replicating cells were quantified in 16 appositional and eight resorptive regions. Sections were also reacted for markers of osteogenic (Runx2) and osteoclastic [CTR (calcitonin receptor), RANK, TRAP, CD14] lineage, and for an endothelial label (lectin). Replicating cells were often associated with the vasculature; most were unreactive for markers of differentiation. Although the fibrous layers of periosteum had fewer replicating cells per unit area than inner layers (P<0.005), this was in part due to lower cellularity. Appositional periostea differed from resorptive periostea in having thicker fibrous layers (197 vs. 89μm, P=0.02) and higher replication density in the inner layers (606 vs. 329 labeled cells mm(-2) , P=0.02). Osteoprogenitors were numerous in the inner layers of appositional but very scarce in resorptive periostea. Multinucleated osteoclasts were never seen in appositional regions, but mononuclear cells positive for osteoclastic lineage markers were plentiful, especially in the most rapidly growing areas. These cells appeared to be macrophages accompanying a growth rate so rapid as to resemble a response to trauma. In conclusion, appositional and resorptive periostea differ strikingly in morphology and cell content. Resorptive periosteum is a poor choice for osteogenic grafting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.