ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2019
Fluid Cartilage as New Autologous Biomaterial in the Treatment of Minor Nose Defects: Clinical and Microscopic Difference Amongst Diced, Crushed, and Fluid Cartilage.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dorsal Augmentation Rhinoplasty by Cartilage Allograft.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
- Reply to "Letter on Rhinofiller: Fat Grafting (Surgical) Versus Hyaluronic Acid (Non-surgical)".Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Non-surgical Rhinoplasty (NSR): A Systematic Review of Its Techniques, Outcomes, and Patient Satisfaction.Cureus · 2023Review
- Sliced vs crushed cartilage for camouflage: long-term graft survival and histological outcomes.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developing cartilage constructs with injectability, appropriate matrix composition, and persistent cartilaginous phenotype remains an enduring challenge in cartilage repair. Fourteen patients with minor contour deformity were treated with fluid cartilage filler gently injected as autologous fluid graft in deep planes of defect of the nose that were close to the bone or the cartilage. A computerized tomographic scan control was performed after 12 months. Pearson's Chi-square test was used to investigate differences in cartilage density between native and newly formed cartilages. The endpoints were the possibility of using fluid cartilage as filler with aesthetic and functional improvement and versatility. Patients were followed up for two years. The constructs of fluid cartilage graft that were injected in the deep plane resulted in a persistent cartilage tissue with appropriate morphology, adequate central nutritional perfusion without central necrosis or ossification, and further augmented nasal dorsum without obvious contraction and deformation. This report demonstrated that fluid cartilage grafts are useful for cartilage regeneration in patients with outcomes of rhinoplasty, internal nasal valve collapse, and minor congenital nose aesthetics deformity.
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.