ArticleJournal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)2019
Expression of CD34 and CD31 in Central and Peripheral Giant Cell Granulomas.
Article in Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran), 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maximum Value on Arterial Phase Computed Tomography Predicts Prognosis and Treatment Efficacy of Sunitinib for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography features and histogram analysis can differentiate ameloblastomas from central giant cell granulomas.World journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Giant Cell Granulomas of Jaws: a Clinicopathologic Study.Journal of oral & maxillofacial researchArticle
- Unravelling the role of immunohistochemistry in giant cell lesions of jaws: A systematic review.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPReview
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
statement of the problemThere are some differences between clinical features of central giant cell granulomas (CGCGs) and peripheral giant cell granulomas (CGCGs) despite their same microscopic features. The possible role of angiogenesis in this issue is still a matter of debate. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to compare microvessel density (MVD) between CGCGs and PGCGs of the oral cavity using CD31 and CD34. MATERIALS AND
methodImmunohistochemical staining was performed on 18 PGCGs and 19 CGCGs using a monoclonal antibody against CD34 and CD31. MVD was assessed and compared between the lesions using t-test for statistical analysis.
resultsThe expression levels of both CD34 and CD31 were significantly higher in CGCGs compared to PGCGs (
conclusionThe combined evaluation of old- and newly-formed vessels by pan-endothelial cell markers showed differences between CGCGs and PGCGs, supporting the possible vascular-proliferative nature of the former. Whether this difference has a part in their diverse biologic behaviors and the role which pre-existent vessels play in comparison to neo-formed vasculature, requires further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30937331PMC6421330W2908623961What 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.