ArticleFrontiers in physiology2012
Regenerative strategies for craniofacial disorders.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Bifunctional adECM bioscaffold with STIM1-ASCs and IGF-2 promotes functional masseter VML repair via myogenesis and fibrosis suppression.Bioactive materials · 2025Article
- Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review of Clinical Applications and Regenerative Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Optimization and Implication of Adipose-Derived Stem Cells in Craniofacial Bone Regeneration and Repair.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Managing Temporomandibular Joint Osteoarthritis by Dental Stem Cell Secretome.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2023Article
- Polymeric Nanocomposite Hydrogel Scaffolds in Craniofacial Bone Regeneration: A Comprehensive Review.Biomolecules · 2023Review
- Plasmid encodingNanomedicine (London, England) · 2022Article
- Mesenchymal stem cells and three-dimensional-osteoconductive scaffold regenerate calvarial bone in critical size defects in swine.Stem cells translational medicine · 2021Article
- An Update on Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Centered Therapies in Temporomandibular Joint Osteoarthritis.Stem cells international · 2021Review
- A tissue engineering approach for repairing craniofacial volumetric muscle loss in a sheep following a 2, 4, and 6-month recovery.PloS one · 2020Article
- Fat Grafting into Younger Recipients Improves Volume Retention in an Animal Model.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2019Article
- Fibro/chondrogenic differentiation of dental stem cells into chitosan/alginate scaffolds towards temporomandibular joint disc regeneration.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2018Article
- The Role of Skeletal Stem Cells in the Reconstruction of Bone Defects.The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2017Review
- Dental and Nondental Stem Cell Based Regeneration of the Craniofacial Region: A Tissue Based Approach.Stem cells international · 2016Review
- Skeletal muscle tissue engineering: strategies for volumetric constructs.Frontiers in physiology · 2014Review
- Skin equivalent tissue-engineered construct: co-cultured fibroblasts/ keratinocytes on 3D matrices of sericin hope cocoons.PloS one · 2013Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Craniofacial disorders present markedly complicated problems in reconstruction because of the complex interactions of the multiple, simultaneously affected tissues. Regenerative medicine holds promise for new strategies to improve treatment of these disorders. This review addresses current areas of unmet need in craniofacial reconstruction and emphasizes how craniofacial tissues differ from their analogs elsewhere in the body. We present a problem-based approach to illustrate current treatment strategies for various craniofacial disorders, to highlight areas of need, and to suggest regenerative strategies for craniofacial bone, fat, muscle, nerve, and skin. For some tissues, current approaches offer excellent reconstructive solutions using autologous tissue or prosthetic materials. Thus, new "regenerative" approaches would need to offer major advantages in order to be adopted. In other tissues, the unmet need is great, and we suggest the greatest regenerative need is for muscle, skin, and nerve. The advent of composite facial tissue transplantation and the development of regenerative medicine are each likely to add important new paradigms to our treatment of craniofacial disorders.
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.