Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25330002›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Pullulan/dextran/nHA macroporous composite beads for bone repair in a femoral condyle defect in rats.

Silke Schlaubitz, Sidi Mohammed Derkaoui, Lydia Marosa, Sylvain Miraux, Martine Renard, Sylvain Catros, Catherine Le Visage, Didier Letourneur, Joëlle Amédée, Jean-Christophe Fricain

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Silke SchlaubitzCIC 1401, University hospital of Bordeaux/Inserm, Bordeaux, France.
Sidi Mohammed DerkaouiU1148, LVTS/Inserm, Paris, France; Près Sorbonne Paris Cité, University of Paris Nord and University Paris Diderot, Paris, France.
Lydia MarosaU1026 Tissue Bioengineering, University of Bordeaux/Inserm, Bordeaux, France.
Sylvain MirauxRMSB Center/UMR 5536, CNRS, Bordeaux, France.
Martine RenardCIC 1401, University hospital of Bordeaux/Inserm, Bordeaux, France.
Sylvain CatrosU1026 Tissue Bioengineering, University of Bordeaux/Inserm, Bordeaux, France; Dental School, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Catherine Le VisageU1148, LVTS/Inserm, Paris, France; Près Sorbonne Paris Cité, University of Paris Nord and University Paris Diderot, Paris, France.
Didier LetourneurU1148, LVTS/Inserm, Paris, France; Près Sorbonne Paris Cité, University of Paris Nord and University Paris Diderot, Paris, France.
Joëlle AmédéeU1026 Tissue Bioengineering, University of Bordeaux/Inserm, Bordeaux, France.
Jean-Christophe FricainU1026 Tissue Bioengineering, University of Bordeaux/Inserm, Bordeaux, France; Dental School, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Inserm · FRUniversité de Bordeaux · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The repair of bone defects is of particular interest for orthopedic, oral, maxillofacial, and dental surgery. Bone loss requiring reconstruction is conventionally addressed through bone grafting. Depending on the size and the location of the defect, this method has limits and risks. Biomaterials can offer an alternative and have features supporting bone repair. Here, we propose to evaluate the cellular penetration and bone formation of new macroporous beads based on pullulan/dextran that has been supplemented with nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite in a rat model. Cross-linked beads of 300-500 µm diameters were used in a lateral femoral condyle defect and analyzed by magnetic resonance imaging, micro-computed tomography, and histology in comparison to the empty defects 15, 30, and 70 days after implantation. Inflammation was absent for both conditions. For empty defects, cellularisation and mineralization started from the periphery of the defect. For the defects containing beads, cellular structures filling out the spaces between the scaffolds with increasing interconnectivity and trabecular-like organization were observed over time. The analysis of calcified sections showed increased mineralization over time for both conditions, but was more pronounced for the samples containing beads. Bone Mineral Density and Bone Mineral Content were both significantly higher at day 70 for the beads in comparison to empty defects as well as compared with earlier time points. Analysis of newly formed tissue around the beads showed an increase of osteoid tissue, measured as percentage of the defect surface. This study suggests that the use of beads for the repair of small size defects in bone may be expanded on to meet the clinical need for a ready-to-use fill-up material that can favor bone formation and mineralization, as well as promote vessel ingrowth into the defect site.

Indexed as

MicrospheresNanoparticlesAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsBone RegenerationCalcification, PhysiologicDextransDurapatiteFemurGlucansMalePorosityRadiographyRatsTissue EngineeringTissue ScaffoldsBiocompatible MaterialsDextransDurapatiteGlucanspullulan

Identifiers

PMID25330002
PMCPMC4203774
OpenAlexW2092030745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.