ArticleOrthodontics & craniofacial research2015
Growth characteristics underlying the lack of a chin in pigs: a histomorphometric study.
Article in Orthodontics & craniofacial research, 2015. 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.
- Similarities and differences between porcine mandibular and limb bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells.Archives of oral biology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDespite similar mandibular growth to that of humans, pigs lack a chin projection as shown in most humans. To understand whether this divergence is contributed to differences in local symphyseal growth, this project characterized bone modeling activities at the symphyseal surfaces of juvenile pigs. MATERIAL AND
methodsSymphyseal specimens from two age groups (4- and 6-month-old, n = 10) were processed into histological sections with and without decalcification, which were assessed for surface mineral apposition and bone resorption, respectively. In a blinded fashion, measurements of four parameters (MAR: mineral apposition rate, MAZ: mineral apposition zone, ES/BS: eroded surface and OC.N/BS: osteoclast number) were obtained and tested by a multivariate two-way mixed-model analyses of variance (manova) for the differences between symphyseal regions and ages.
resultsQualitatively, pig symphyseal labial and lingual surfaces were horizontally oriented and characterized by mineral apposition and bone resorption, respectively. Quantitatively, labial mineral apposition tended to be greater rostrally than caudally at 4 months, which became greater caudally than rostrally at 6 months (region/age interactions: p = 0.127 for MAR, p = 0.012 for MAZ). Lingual bone resorption tended to be greater caudally than rostrally, but only ES/BS measurements were significant (p = 0.039) regardless of age, while OC.N/BS measurements varied with ages and regions (age/region interaction, p = 0.087).
conclusionsInsufficient differential in symphyseal surface modeling between the labial-caudal and labial-rostral regions contributes to the lack of chin projection in the pig.
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.