ArticlePloS one2016
Micro-CT vs. Whole Body Multirow Detector CT for Analysing Bone Regeneration in an Animal Model.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expanded methods for geometric location of 2D bone histology co-registration in 3D radiology volumes.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Experimental Study on Rats with Critical-Size Bone Defects Comparing Effects of Autologous Bone Graft, Equine Bone Substitute Bio-GenPolymers · 2024Article
- Dual-energy computed tomography and micro-computed tomography for assessing bone regeneration in a rabbit tibia model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- In-house 3D-printed surgical guides for osseous lesions of the lower jaw: an experimental study.European journal of medical research · 2021Article
- Bone structure determined by HR-MDCT does not correlate with micro-CT of lumbar vertebral biopsies: a prospective cross-sectional human in vivo study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCompared with multirow detector CT (MDCT), specimen (ex vivo) micro-CT (μCT) has a significantly higher (~ 30 x) spatial resolution and is considered the gold standard for assessing bone above the cellular level. However, it is expensive and time-consuming, and when applied in vivo, the radiation dose accumulates considerably. The aim of this study was to examine whether the lower resolution of the widely used MDCT is sufficient to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate bone regeneration in rats.
methodsForty critical-size defects (5mm) were placed in the mandibular angle of rats and covered with coated bioactive titanium implants to promote bone healing. Five time points were selected (7, 14, 28, 56 and 112 days). μCT and MDCT were used to evaluate the defect region to determine the bone volume (BV), tissue mineral density (TMD) and bone mineral content (BMC).
resultsMDCT constantly achieved higher BV values than μCT (10.73±7.84 mm3 vs. 6.62±4.96 mm3, p<0.0001) and consistently lower TMD values (547.68±163.83 mm3 vs. 876.18±121.21 mm3, p<0.0001). No relevant difference was obtained for BMC (6.48±5.71 mm3 vs. 6.15±5.21 mm3, p = 0.40). BV and BMC showed very strong correlations between both methods, whereas TMD was only moderately correlated (r = 0.87, r = 0.90, r = 0.68, p < 0.0001).
conclusionsDue to partial volume effects, MDCT overestimated BV and underestimated TMD but accurately determined BMC, even in small volumes, compared with μCT. Therefore, if bone quantity is a sufficient end point, a considerable number of animals and costs can be saved, and compared with in vivo μCT, the required dose of radiation can be reduced.
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.