Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25139365›Full record

ReviewJournal of dental research2014

Biomaterials for craniofacial bone engineering.

R Tevlin, A McArdle, D Atashroo, G G Walmsley, K Senarath-Yapa, E R Zielins, K J Paik, M T Longaker, D C Wan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of dental research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. The Role of Gli1Biomolecules · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Expansion of the sagittal suture induces proliferation of skeletal stem cells and sustains endogenous calvarial bone regeneration.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

R TevlinHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Department of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
A McArdleHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Department of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
D AtashrooHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Department of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
G G WalmsleyHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Department of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
K Senarath-YapaHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Department of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
E R ZielinsHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Department of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
K J PaikHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Department of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
M T LongakerHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Department of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
D C WanHagey Laboratory for Pediatric Regenerative Medicine, Department of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA dwan@stanford.edu.

Funding

Induced pluripotent stem cells in the understanding and treatment of heart diseaseU01HL099776 · NHLBI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LONGAKER, MICHAEL T, WU, JOSEPH C. · 2009 to 2015
$8.2M
Osteogenic Enrichment of Adipose Derived Stromal CellsR01DE021683 · NIDCR · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GURTNER, GEOFFREY C, LONGAKER, MICHAEL T · 2012 to 2016
$2.0M
Regional differences in neural crest and mesodermal derived calvarial bone healinR01DE019434 · NIDCR · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LONGAKER, MICHAEL T · 2010 to 2013
$1.5M
Enhancing Bcl-2 Expression for Bone Regeneration.R21DE024230 · NIDCR · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LONGAKER, MICHAEL T · 2014 to 2015
$443k
NHLBI NIH HHS U01 HL099776NHLBI NIH HHS U01HL099776NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE019434NIDCR NIH HHS R01DE019434NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE021683NIDCR NIH HHS R01DE02183NIDCR NIH HHS R21 DE024230NIDCR NIH HHS R21DE02423001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conditions such as congenital anomalies, cancers, and trauma can all result in devastating deficits of bone in the craniofacial skeleton. This can lead to significant alteration in function and appearance that may have significant implications for patients. In addition, large bone defects in this area can pose serious clinical dilemmas, which prove difficult to remedy, even with current gold standard surgical treatments. The craniofacial skeleton is complex and serves important functional demands. The necessity to develop new approaches for craniofacial reconstruction arises from the fact that traditional therapeutic modalities, such as autologous bone grafting, present myriad limitations and carry with them the potential for significant complications. While the optimal bone construct for tissue regeneration remains to be elucidated, much progress has been made in the past decade. Advances in tissue engineering have led to innovative scaffold design, complemented by progress in the understanding of stem cell-based therapy and growth factor enhancement of the healing cascade. This review focuses on the role of biomaterials for craniofacial bone engineering, highlighting key advances in scaffold design and development.

Indexed as

Tissue ScaffoldsBiocompatible MaterialsFacial BonesHumansIntercellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsPlastic Surgery ProceduresProsthesis DesignSkullStem Cell TransplantationTissue EngineeringBiocompatible MaterialsIntercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteinsbiocompatibilitybioengineeringbiomimetismregenerationscaffoldsskeleton

Identifiers

PMID25139365
PMCPMC4237632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.