Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21223257›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2011

Cell replication in craniofacial periosteum: appositional vs. resorptive sites.

Pannee Ochareon, Susan W Herring

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Periosteal Skeletal Stem Cells and Their Response to Bone Injury.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Signaling Mechanisms Underlying Genetic Pathophysiology of Craniosynostosis.International journal of biological sciences · 2019
    Review
  8. Craniofacial Tissue Engineering.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2018
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pannee OchareonDepartment of Oral Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-7446, USA.
Susan W Herring
University of Washington · US

Funding

BONE GROWTH, PERIOSTEAL MIGRATION, AND MUSCLE FUNCTIONR01DE008513 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HERRING, SUSAN W · 1987 to 2007
$2.1M
NIDCR NIH HHS DE08513NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE008513
6 · The paper itself

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

Cell ProliferationAnimalsAutoradiographyBiomarkersBone ResorptionBromodeoxyuridineCell DifferentiationImmunohistochemistryOsteogenesisPeriosteumReceptors, CalcitoninSkullSwineBiomarkersBromodeoxyuridineReceptors, Calcitonin

Identifiers

PMID21223257
PMCPMC3058215
OpenAlexW1755895253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.