Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28958188›Full record

ArticleThe journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society2017

Comparison of Different Decalcification Methods Using Rat Mandibles as a Model.

Flavia M Savi, Gary I Brierly, Jeremy Baldwin, Christina Theodoropoulos, Maria A Woodruff

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing 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

54 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Regional Microarchitecture of the Skin of the Arabian Carpetshark (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Efficacy ofOpen veterinary journal · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The Oral Administration ofCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2024
    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

5 authors.

Flavia M SaviInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0067-8308
Gary I BrierlyInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Jeremy BaldwinInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Christina TheodoropoulosInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Maria A WoodruffInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Selection of decalcification agents is an essential consideration when processing mineralized tissues because the integrity and immunohistochemical characteristics of the tissues may be affected. Here, we report results obtained from the decalcification of rat mandibles using 10% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) at room temperature (RT), 10% EDTA at 37C, 5% nitric acid, and 10% formic acid at RT. Decalcification endpoints were determined by microcomputed tomography. Morphological preservation and antigenicity were evaluated by hematoxylin and eosin staining and immunohistochemistry. Decalcification of the anterior and posterior portions of the mandible took 220 and 191 hr in 10% EDTA RT, 102 and 73 hr in 10% EDTA 37C, 13.5 and 4.3 hr in 5% nitric acid, and 140 and 36 hr in 10% formic acid, respectively. Decalcification in 10% EDTA at 37C was accelerated, but 10% EDTA at RT provided optimal results for immunohistochemistry and cellular and structural details. Decalcification using 5% nitric acid was accomplished in the shortest time and exhibited good cellular and architectural morphology, whereas 10% formic acid was suboptimal with respect to tissue and cellular morphology. Despite being the slowest method, EDTA at RT is still the recommended method for decalcifying mineralized tissues; however, if rapid decalcification is needed, 5% nitric acid is the best option, yielding acceptable tissue integrity and speed.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntigensDecalcification TechniqueMandibleRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyAntigensbonedecalcificationEDTAmandiblemineralized tissuerat

Identifiers

PMID28958188
PMCPMC5714097

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.