Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32448465›Full record

ArticleInjury2020

Calvaria critical-size defects in rats using piezoelectric equipment: a comparison with the classic trephine.

R Senos, K D Hankenson

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Accuracy of dynamic navigation-assisted trephine method for bone harvesting].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R SenosDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, USA. Electronic address: rafaelsenos@yahoo.com.br.
K D HankensonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Tufts University · USUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

Structure, Composition, & Histology Core - Core BP30AR069620 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI KARL J JEPSEN · 2016 to 2026
$8.4M
NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR069620
6 · The paper itself

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

Bone RegenerationSurgical InstrumentsAnimalsMaleRatsSkullX-Ray MicrotomographyBone regenerationDelayed unionHistologyMicrocomputed tomographyNon-unionParietalPiezoSkullUltrasonic

Identifiers

PMID32448465
PMCPMC8245198
OpenAlexW3025501478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.