ArticlePloS one2020
An analytical study of neocartilage from microtia and otoplasty surgical remnants: A possible application for BMP7 in microtia development and regeneration.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Enhancing auricular reconstruction: A biomimetic scaffold with 3D-printed multiscale porous structure utilizing chondrogenic activity ink.Materials today. Bio · 2025Article
- Systematic Review on Microtia: Current Knowledge and Future Directions.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- 3D printing tissue-engineered scaffolds for auricular reconstruction.Materials today. Bio · 2024Review
- Calebin A modulates inflammatory and autophagy signals for the prevention and treatment of osteoarthritis.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Combining bioengineered human skin with bioprinted cartilage for ear reconstruction.Science advances · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate auricular reconstruction by tissue engineering means, this study compared cartilage regenerated from human chondrocytes obtained from either microtia or normal (conchal) tissues discarded from otoplasties. Isolated cells were expanded in vitro, seeded onto nanopolyglycolic acid (nanoPGA) sheets with or without addition of bone morphogenetic protein-7 (BMP7), and implanted in nude mice for 10 weeks. On specimen harvest, cartilage development was assessed by gross morphology, histology, and RT-qPCR and microarray analyses. Neocartilages from normal and microtia surgical tissues were found equivalent in their dimensions, qualitative degree of proteoglycan and elastic fiber staining, and quantitative gene expression levels of types II and III collagen, elastin, and SOX5. Microarray analysis, applied for the first time for normal and microtia neocartilage comparison, yielded no genes that were statistically significantly different in expression between these two sample groups. These results support use of microtia tissue as a cell source for normal auricular reconstruction. Comparison of normal and microtia cells, each seeded on nanoPGA and supplemented with BMP7 in a slow-release hydrogel, showed statistically significant differences in certain genes identified by microarray analysis. Such differences were also noted in several analyses comparing counterpart seeded cells without BMP7. Summary data suggest a possible application for BMP7 in microtia cartilage regeneration and encourage further studies to elucidate whether such genotypic differences translate to phenotypic characteristics of the human microtic ear. The present work advances understanding relevant to the potential clinical use of microtia surgical remnants as a suitable cell source for tissue engineering of the pinna.
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.