ArticleInjury2020
Calvaria critical-size defects in rats using piezoelectric equipment: a comparison with the classic trephine.
Article in Injury, 2020. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Accuracy of dynamic navigation-assisted trephine method for bone harvesting].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026Article
- Comprehensive evaluation of critical-size calvarial defect in athymic rat model.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Use of Photobiomodulation Combined with Fibrin Sealant and Bone Substitute Improving the Bone Repair of Critical Defects.Polymers · 2022Article
- Nanocomposites of Chitosan/Graphene Oxide/Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles/Blackberry Waste Extract as Potential Bone Substitutes.Polymers · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Calvarial critical-size defects in rats are used to study regeneration of both craniofacial bone and long-bones. For decades, the trephine technique has been used with no notable refinements in the procedure. The use of piezoelectric surgical equipment has increased in human clinical oral and maxillofacial surgery, neurosurgery, traumatology, and orthopedics, because the devices are easy to handle, and can cut bone without damaging sensitive soft tissues such as blood vessels, nerves, and membranes. This study evaluated and compared the surgical technique and bone regeneration process between a traditional hand-drill trephine and piezoelectric equipment in a critical-size calvaria defect in a rat model. Thirty SD male rats were randomly divided into two groups and had either a 7.9mm diameter circular defect created with trephine or a 7.0mm square defect using the piezoelectric device, both creating 49 mm2 defect areas. MicroCT and histology were performed at 45 and 75d after surgery. While trephine surgeries were performed faster than piezoelectric (25.5 minutes vs 38.5 minutes), the rate of complications was much higher, with 36% of trephine rats taking 20 minutes to achieve hemostasis. Although the extent of new bone formation was similar between the two surgical groups, the piezoelectric technique resulted in 50% less variability. No additional new bone formation was observed from 45 to 75d in both techniques. Piezoelectric technique represents a refined and more reproducible technique for calvarial defect generation in comparison to classic trephine methods.
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.