Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28793481›Full record

ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2015

Preclinical

Claudia Holderegger, Patrick R Schmidlin, Franz E Weber, Dirk Mohn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Claudia HoldereggerPrivate Practice, Marktgasse 27, 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland. c.holderegger@bluewin.ch.
Patrick R SchmidlinClinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland. patrick.schmidlin@zzm.uzh.ch.
Franz E WeberDepartment of Cranio-Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Oral Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland. franz.weber@zzm.uzh.ch.
Dirk MohnClinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland. dirk.mohn@chem.ethz.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone substitute materials have witnessed tremendous development over the past decades and autogenous bone may still be considered the gold standard for many clinicians and clinical approaches in order to rebuild and restore bone defects. However, a plethora of novel xenogenic and synthetic bone substitute materials have been introduced in recent years in the field of bone regeneration. As the development of bone is actually a calcification process within a collagen fiber arrangement, the use of scaffolds in the formation of fibers may offer some advantages, along with additional handling characteristics. This review focuses on material characteristics and degradation behavior of electrospun biodegradable polyester scaffolds. Furthermore, we concentrated on the preclinical

Indexed as

3D scaffoldbiodegradable polymerbonecalcium phosphatecalvarial defectelectrospinningexperimental animal modelsnanocomposite

Identifiers

PMID28793481
PMCPMC5455478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.