ArticleGMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW2014
Subperiosteal preparation using a new piezoelectric device: a histological examination.
Article in GMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSubperiosteal preparation using a periosteal elevator leads to disturbances of local immunohistochemistry and periosteal histology due to a microtrauma. Usually soft-tissue damage can be considerably reduced by using piezoelectric technology. For this reason, the effects of a novel piezoelectric device on immunohistochemistry and periosteal histology were examined and compared to conventional preparation of the periosteum using a periosteal elevator. MATERIAL AND
methodsLewis rats were randomly assigned to one of five groups (n=50). Subperiosteal preparation was performed using either a piezoelectric device or a periosteal elevator. Immunohistochemical and histological analyses were performed immediately after preparation as well as three and eight days postoperatively. A statistical analysis of the histological colouring was performed offline using analysis of variance (ANOVA) on ranks (p<0.05).
resultsAt all times, immunohistochemical and histological analysis demonstrated a significantly more homogenous tissue structure in the group of rats that underwent piezosurgery than in the group of rats that underwent treatment with a periosteal elevator.
conclusionThe use of a piezoelectric device for subperiosteal preparation is associated with more harmonious immunohistochemical and histological results for the periosteum than the use of a conventional periosteal elevator. As a result, piezoelectric devices can be expected to have a positive effect primarily on soft tissue, in particular of the periosteal as well as on surrounding tissues.
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.