ArticleTissue engineering. Part C, Methods2019
Development and Characterization of a Rabbit Model of Compromised Maxillofacial Wound Healing.
Article in Tissue engineering. Part C, Methods, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid assessment of the osteogenic capacity of hydroxyapatite/aragonite using a murine tibial periosteal ossification model.Bioactive materials · 2025Article
- A novel micro-CT analysis for evaluating the regenerative potential of bone augmentation xenografts in rabbit calvarias.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- 3D Printing Applications for Craniomaxillofacial Reconstruction: A Sweeping Review.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2023Review
- Revolutionizing bone regeneration: advanced biomaterials for healing compromised bone defects.Frontiers in aging · 2023Review
- Bilateral double site (calvarial and mandibular) critical-size bone defect model in rabbits for evaluation of a craniofacial tissue engineering constructs.Materials today. Bio · 2022Article
- Three-Dimensional Printing for Craniofacial Bone Tissue Engineering.Tissue engineering. Part A · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
impact statementMaxillofacial defects often present the clinical challenge of a compromised wound bed. Preclinical evaluation of tissue engineering techniques developed to facilitate healing and reconstruction typically involves animal models with ideal wound beds. The healthy wound bed scenario does not fully mimic the complex clinical environment in patients, which can lead to technology failure when translating from preclinical in vivo research to clinical use. The reported preclinical animal model of compromised wound healing enables investigation of tissue engineering technologies in a more clinically relevant scenario, potentially fostering translation of promising results in preclinical research to patients.
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.