ArticlePloS one2014
Radiological assessment of bioengineered bone in a muscle flap for the reconstruction of critical-size mandibular defect.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between fractal analysis and radiopacity evaluation as a tool for studying repair of an osseous defect in an animal model using biomaterials.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study presents a comprehensive radiographic evaluation of bone regeneration within a pedicled muscle flap for the reconstruction of critical size mandibular defect. The surgical defect (20 mm × 15 mm) was created in the mandible of ten experimental rabbits. The masseter muscle was adapted to fill the surgical defect, a combination of calcium sulphate/hydroxyapatite cement (CERAMENT™ |SPINE SUPPORT), BMP-7 and rabbit mesenchymal stromal cells (rMSCs) was injected inside the muscle tissue. Radiographic assessment was carried out on the day of surgery and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks postoperatively. At 12 weeks, the animals were sacrificed and cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) scanning and micro-computed tomography (µ-CT) were carried out. Clinically, a clear layer of bone tissue was identified closely adherent to the border of the surgical defect. Sporadic radio-opaque areas within the surgical defect were detected radiographically. In comparison with the opposite non operated control side, the estimated quantitative scoring of the radio-opacity was 46.6% ± 15, the mean volume of the radio-opaque areas was 63.4% ± 20. Areas of a bone density higher than that of the mandibular bone (+35% ± 25%) were detected at the borders of the surgical defect. The micro-CT analysis revealed thinner trabeculae of the regenerated bone with a more condensed trabecular pattern than the surrounding native bone. These findings suggest a rapid deposition rate of the mineralised tissue and an active remodelling process of the newly regenerated bone within the muscle flap. The novel surgical model of this study has potential clinical application; the assessment of bone regeneration using the presented radiolographic protocol is descriptive and comprehensive. The findings of this research confirm the remarkable potential of local muscle flaps as local bioreactors to induce bone formation for reconstruction of maxillofacial bony defects.
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.