Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25966306›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Mechanical properties of calvarial bones in a mouse model for craniosynostosis.

Mehran Moazen, Emma Peskett, Christian Babbs, Erwin Pauws, Michael J Fagan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A preliminary analysis of replicating the biomechanics of helmet therapy for sagittal craniosynostosis.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Cell Mechanics of Craniosynostosis.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2017
    Article
  16. Modelling human skull growth: a validated computational model.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2017
    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

5 authors.

Mehran MoazenMedical and Biological Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom.
Emma PeskettUCL Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom.
Christian BabbsWeatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Erwin PauwsUCL Institute of Child Health, London, United Kingdom.
Michael J FaganMedical and Biological Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/E014259/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H011668/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mammalian cranial vault largely consists of five flat bones that are joined together along their edges by soft fibrous tissues called sutures. Premature closure of the cranial sutures, craniosynostosis, can lead to serious clinical pathology unless there is surgical intervention. Research into the genetic basis of the disease has led to the development of various animal models that display this condition, e.g. mutant type Fgfr2C342Y/+ mice which display early fusion of the coronal suture (joining the parietal and frontal bones). However, whether the biomechanical properties of the mutant and wild type bones are affected has not been investigated before. Therefore, nanoindentation was used to compare the elastic modulus of cranial bone and sutures in wild type (WT) and Fgfr2C342Y/+mutant type (MT) mice during their postnatal development. Further, the variations in properties with indentation position and plane were assessed. No difference was observed in the elastic modulus of parietal bone between the WT and MT mice at postnatal (P) day 10 and 20. However, the modulus of frontal bone in the MT group was lower than the WT group at both P10 (1.39±0.30 vs. 5.32±0.68 GPa; p<0.05) and P20 (5.57±0.33 vs. 7.14±0.79 GPa; p<0.05). A wide range of values was measured along the coronal sutures for both the WT and MT samples, with no significant difference between the two groups. Findings of this study suggest that the inherent mechanical properties of the frontal bone in the mutant mice were different to the wild type mice from the same genetic background. These differences may reflect variations in the degree of biomechanical adaptation during skull growth, which could have implications for the surgical management of craniosynostosis patients.

Indexed as

Elastic ModulusAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaCraniosynostosesMiceReceptor, Fibroblast Growth Factor, Type 2SkullFgfr2 protein, mouseReceptor, Fibroblast Growth Factor, Type 2

Identifiers

PMID25966306
PMCPMC4429024

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.