ArticleBioMed research international2017
Postembedding Decalcification of Mineralized Tissue Sections Preserves the Integrity of Implanted Biomaterials and Minimizes Number of Experimental Animals.
Article in BioMed research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Limited Added Effect of Proline-Rich P6 Peptide to Cross-Linked Hyaluronic Acid After Partial Lateral Meniscectomy in Sheep.Smart medicine · 2026Article
- Enhancing Histological Techniques for Small Crustaceans: Evaluation of Fixation, Decalcification, and Enzymatic Digestion inAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Landscape of Well-Coordinated Fracture Healing in a Mouse Model Using Molecular and Cellular Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Confirmation of Calcium Phosphate Cement Biodegradation after Jawbone Augmentation around Dental Implants Using Three-Dimensional Visualization and Segmentation Software.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone histology of decalcified or undecalcified samples depends on the investigation. However, in research each method provides different information to answer the scientific question. Decalcification is the first step after sample fixation and governs what analysis is later feasible on the sections. Besides, decalcification is favored for immunostaining and in situ hybridization. Otherwise, sample decalcification can be damaging to bone biomaterials implants that contains calcium or strontium. On the other hand, after decalcification mineralization cannot be assessed using histology or imaging mass spectrometry. The current study provides a solution to the hardship caused by material presence within the bone tissue. The protocol presents a possibility of gaining sequential and alternating decalcified and undecalcified sections from the same bone sample. In this manner, investigations using histology, protein signaling, in situ hybridization, and mass spectrometry on the same sample can better answer the intended research question. Indeed, decalcification of sections and grindings resulted in well-preserved sample and biomaterials integrity. Immunostaining was comparable to that of classically decalcified samples. The study offers a novel approach that incites correlative analysis on the same sample and reduces the number of processed samples whether clinical biopsies or experimental animals.
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.