ArticleHead & face medicine2016
Novel use of cranial epidural space in rabbits as an animal model to investigate bone volume augmentation potential of different bone graft substitutes.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2016. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Two Alloplastic Biomaterials in a Critical-Size Rat Calvarial Defect Model.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Calcium-to-phosphorus releasing ratio affects osteoinductivity and osteoconductivity of calcium phosphate bioceramics in bone tissue engineering.Biomedical engineering online · 2023Article
- Efficacy of extracellular vesicles from dental pulp stem cells for bone regeneration in rat calvarial bone defects.Inflammation and regeneration · 2021Article
- Histologic analyses of flapless ridge preservation in sockets with buccal dehiscence defects using two alloplastic bone graft substitutes.Clinical oral investigations · 2019Article
- In Situ Endoscopic Analysis of Vascular Supply and Regenerated Alveolar Bone inBioMed research international · 2019Article
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe success of bone augmentation to a major degree depends on the biomechanics and biological conditions of the surrounding tissues. Therefore, an animal model is needed providing anatomical sites with similar mechanical pressures for comparing its influence on different biomaterials for bone regeneration. The present report describes the new bone formation associated to biomaterial in a bursa created in the epidural space, between dura mater and cranial calvaria, under the constant pressure of cerebrospinal fluid.
methodsFive adult California rabbits were used for the trial. In each animal, two bursae were created in the epidural spaces, in the anterior part of the skull, below both sides of the interfrontal suture. The spaces between dura mater and cranial calvaria were filled with in-situ hardening biphasic calcium phosphate containing hydroxyapatite and beta tricalcium-phosphate (BCP), in-situ hardening phase-pure beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) or without any biomaterials (sham). After 90 days, the animals were sacrificed, and the defect sites were extracted and processed for histomorphometric analysis by optical and backscattered electron microscopy.
resultsThe cranial epidural spaces created (n = 10) could be preserved by the application both BCP (n = 3) and β-TCP biomaterials (n = 3) in all experimental sites. The sites augmented with BCP showed less new bone formation but a trend to better volume preservation than the sites augmented with β-TCP. However, the bone in the BCP sites seemed to be more mature as indicated by the higher percentage of lamellar bone in the sites. In contrast, the created space could not be preserved, and new bone formation was scarce in the sham-operated sites (n = 4).
conclusionThe experimental bursae created bilaterally in the epidural space allows comparing objectively bone formation in relation to biomaterials for bone regeneration under permanent physiological forces from cerebrospinal fluid pressure.
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.