ArticleIranian journal of veterinary research2018
Effects of chitosan scaffold along with royal jelly or bee venom in regeneration of critical sized radial bone defect in rat.
Article in Iranian journal of veterinary research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fracture healing potential of tetracalcium phosphate: An experimental study in a rat femur standardized diaphyseal osteotomy with open approach.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2026Article
- Synergistic Therapeutic Effects of Chitosan and Royal Jelly.Polymers · 2025Review
- Applications of honeybee-derived products in bone tissue engineering.Bone reports · 2024Review
- Pharmacological effects and mechanisms of bee venom and its main components: Recent progress and perspective.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- An overview of de novo bone generation in animal models.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of honey bee venom (BV) and royal jelly (RJ) alongside chitosan scaffold (CS) in improving radius bone defect in rats. A total of 60 full thickness radial bone defects with a length of 5 mm were created in 60 male Wistar rats. Six healthy radial bones (3 rats) were also assigned as normal control for biomechanical studies. The defects were left empty (untreated group) or were filled by the autograft (autograft group), CS (CS group), CS alongside the BV solution (CS-BV group), and CS alongside the RJ solution (CS-RJ group). Healing of the bone defects were evaluated clinically and radiologically on days 0, 28, 42 and 56 after operation while the biomechanical testing and histopathological examination were performed on the 56th day after surgery. The autograft was more radiopaque than the untreated and CS groups at the 28th, 42nd and 56th postoperative days (P<0.05). The CS-BV and CS-RJ groups showed significantly higher radiographic outcomes than the untreated and CS groups at the 56th post-operative day (P<0.05). The density of osseous tissue (DOT) and the osteocytes and osteoblasts count of the CS-RJ and CS-BV groups were significantly higher than the CS and autograft groups (P<0.05). The biomechanical results of the CS-RJ group were significantly superior to the autograft, while the biomechanical properties of CS-BV group were not significantly different with the autograft group (P>0.05). The scaffolds in CS group were observable in the surgical site after 56 days. There was no significant difference in radiographs, DOT, cartilage tissue and fibrous tissue, and also biomechanical performances of the CS-BV and CS-RJ groups at the 42nd and 56th day after surgery. The untreated and CS groups showed weakest biomechanical results among all groups. It could be concluded that both treatment strategies in the CS-BV and CS-RJ groups were appropriate and useful in treating critical bone defects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30774664PMC6361593W3007644387What 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.