Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29121815›Full record

ReviewTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2018

Preclinical Animal Models for Temporomandibular Joint Tissue Engineering.

Alejandro J Almarza, Bryan N Brown, Boaz Arzi, David Faustino Ângelo, William Chung, Stephen F Badylak, Michael Detamore

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Surface wear in a custom manufactured temporomandibular joint prosthesis.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alejandro J Almarza1 Department of Oral Biology, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Bryan N Brown2 Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Boaz Arzi5 Surgical and Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California , Davis, California.
David Faustino Ângelo6 Stomatology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Centro Hospitalar de Setúbal, University of Lisbon , Lisbon, Portugal .
William Chung7 Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Stephen F Badylak2 Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Michael Detamore9 Stephenson School of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Oklahoma , Norman, Oklahoma.
University of Pittsburgh · USMcGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine · US

Funding

A Regenerative Medicine Approach for TMJ Meniscus RestorationR01DE022055 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI ALMARZA, ALEJANDRO JOSE, BADYLAK, STEPHEN F. · 2012 to 2015
$2.5M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE022055
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a paucity of in vivo studies that investigate the safety and efficacy of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) tissue regeneration approaches, in part due to the lack of established animal models. Review of disease models for study of TMJ is presented herein with an attempt to identify relevant preclinical animal models for TMJ tissue engineering, with emphasis on the disc and condyle. Although degenerative joint disease models have been mainly performed on mice, rats, and rabbits, preclinical regeneration approaches must employ larger animal species. There remains controversy regarding the preferred choice of larger animal models between the farm pig, minipig, goat, sheep, and dog. The advantages of the pig and minipig include their well characterized anatomy, physiology, and tissue properties. The advantages of the sheep and goat are their easier surgical access, low cost per animal, and its high tissue availability. The advantage of the dog is that the joint space is confined, so migration of interpositional devices should be less likely. However, each species has limitations as well. For example, the farm pig has continuous growth until about 18 months of age, and difficult surgical access due to the zygomatic arch covering the lateral aspect of joint. The minipig is not widely available and somewhat costly. The sheep and the goat are herbivores, and their TMJs mainly function in translation. The dog is a carnivore, and the TMJ is a hinge joint that can only rotate. Although no species provides the gold standard for all preclinical TMJ tissue engineering approaches, the goat and sheep have emerged as the leading options, with the minipig as the choice when cost is less of a limitation; and with the dog and farm pig serving as acceptable alternatives. Finally, naturally occurring TMJ disorders in domestic species may be harnessed on a preclinical trial basis as a clinically relevant platform for translation.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalRegenerationTemporomandibular JointTemporomandibular Joint DisordersAnimalsDogsGoatsHumansSheepSwineSwine, MiniatureTissue Engineeringanimal modelstemporomandibular jointtissue engineeringTMJ

Identifiers

PMID29121815
PMCPMC5994143
OpenAlexW2767916152

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.