ArticleMuscle & nerve2015
Differential response of pig masseter to botulinum neurotoxin serotypes a and b.
Article in Muscle & nerve, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic Applications of Botulinum Neurotoxins in Veterinary Medicine.Veterinary sciences · 2023Review
- Temporary Botulinum Immobilization of Residuum Muscles for Facilitation of the Initial Ingrowth of Skin to the PorousFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2022Article
- Functional tooth mobility in young pigs.Journal of biomechanics · 2020Article
- Mechanobiology of bone and suture - Results from a pig model.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2019Article
- A comparison of biological activity of commercially available purified native botulinum neurotoxin serotypes A1 to F1 in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPigs respond to direct administration of botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs), although they are resistant to botulism. The human masseter is frequently targeted for BoNT therapy. We aimed to understand how BoNT affects chewing by injecting porcine masseters.
methodsOne masseter of minipigs was injected with BoNT serotype A or B at doses comparable to those used in humans. Masticatory function was evaluated electromyographically. Muscle force was measured during tetany. Four weeks after injection, strain gauges affixed to the mandible assessed bone strain during chewing. Masseter mass and fiber diameter were measured after euthanasia.
resultsBoNT-A had no measurable effect. In contrast, BoNT-B reduced electrical activity and muscle force, producing substantial asymmetry between injected and uninjected muscles.
conclusionsThe pig masseter is highly resistant to direct injection of BoNT-A, but it is affected by BoNT-B.
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.