Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27658014›Full record

ArticleNature protocols2016

A composite critical-size rabbit mandibular defect for evaluation of craniofacial tissue regeneration.

Sarita R Shah, Simon Young, Julia L Goldman, John A Jansen, Mark E Wong, Antonios G Mikos

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature protocols, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. An Ovine Model ofTissue engineering. Part C, Methods · 2020
    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

6 authors.

Sarita R ShahDepartment of Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA.
Simon YoungDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
Julia L GoldmanCenter for Laboratory Animal Medicine and Care, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
John A JansenDepartment of Biomaterials, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Mark E WongDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA.
Antonios G MikosDepartment of Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Translational biomaterials targeted toward the regeneration of large bone defects in the mandible require a preclinical model that accurately recapitulates the regenerative challenges present in humans. Computational modeling and in vitro assays do not fully replicate the in vivo environment. Consequently, in vivo models can have specific applications such as those of the mandibular angle defect, which is used to investigate bone regeneration in a nonload-bearing area, and the inferior border mandibular defect, which is a model for composite bone and nerve regeneration, with both models avoiding involvement of soft tissue or teeth. In this protocol, we describe a reproducible load-bearing critical-size composite tissue defect comprising loss of soft tissue, bone and tooth in the mandible of a rabbit. We have previously used this procedure to investigate bone regeneration, vascularization and infection prevention in response to new biomaterial formulations for craniofacial tissue engineering applications. This surgical approach can be adapted to investigate models such as that of regeneration in the context of osteoporosis or irradiation. The procedure can be performed by researchers with basic surgical skills such as dissection and suturing. The procedure takes 1.5-2 h, with ∼2 h of immediate postoperative care, and animals should be monitored daily for the remainder of the study. For bone tissue engineering applications, tissue collection typically occurs 12 weeks after surgery. In this protocol, we will present the necessary steps to ensure reproducibility; tips to minimize complications during and after surgery; and analytical techniques for assessing soft tissue, bone and vessel regeneration by gross evaluation, microcomputed tomography (microCT) and histology.

Identifiers

PMID27658014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.