Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33632013›Full record

ReviewTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2022

Facial Nerve Repair: Bioengineering Approaches in Preclinical Models.

Fuat Baris Bengur, Conrad Stoy, Mary A Binko, Wayne Vincent Nerone, Caroline Nadia Fedor, Mario G Solari, Kacey G Marra

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. On the Cranial Nerves.NeuroSci · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fuat Baris BengurDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Conrad StoyDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Mary A BinkoDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Wayne Vincent NeroneDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Caroline Nadia FedorDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Mario G SolariDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Kacey G MarraDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

Michigan-Pittsburgh-Wyss Regenerative Medicine Resource Center: Advancing Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Regeneration to Clinical Trial InitiationU24DE029462 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI GIANNOBILE, WILLIAM V, KOHN, DAVID H. · 2020 to 2024
$31.3M
Michigan-Pittsburgh-Wyss Resource Center: Supporting Regenerative Medicine in Dental, Oral and Craniofacial TechnologiesU24DE026915 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI GIANNOBILE, WILLIAM V, KOHN, DAVID H. · 2017 to 2019
$11.7M
NIDCR NIH HHS U24 DE026915NIDCR NIH HHS U24 DE029462
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Injury to the facial nerve can occur after different etiologies and range from simple transection of the branches to varying degrees of segmental loss. Management depends on the extent of injury and options include primary repair for simple transections and using autografts, allografts, or conduits for larger gaps. Tissue engineering plays an important role to create artificial materials that are able to mimic the nerve itself without extra morbidity in the patients. The use of neurotrophic factors or stem cells inside the conduits or around the repair site is being increasingly studied to enhance neural recovery to a greater extent. Preclinical studies remain the hallmark for development of these novel approaches and translation into clinical practice. This review will focus on preclinical models of repair after facial nerve injury to help researchers establish an appropriate model to quantify recovery and analyze functional outcomes. Different bioengineered materials, including conduits and nerve grafts, will be discussed based on the experimental animals that were used and the defects introduced. Future directions to extend the applications of processed nerve allografts, bioengineered conduits, and cues inside the conduits to induce neural recovery after facial nerve injury will be highlighted. Impact statement Recovery after facial nerve injury is a complex process, which involves different management options such as primary repair or the use of nerve grafts or conduits. Various tissue-engineered approaches are increasingly studied on preclinical models with limited, but promising, translation to the clinical setting. Herein, preclinical models focusing on different recovery methods after facial nerve injury are comprehensively reviewed based on the experimental animals used. The review provides key insights into current developments and future directions on this highly relevant topic to help researchers further expand the field of tissue engineering and facial nerve recovery.

Indexed as

Facial Nerve InjuriesPlastic Surgery ProceduresAnimalsFacial NerveHumansNerve RegenerationTissue Engineeringallograftsconduitsfacial nerve repairgrowth factorspreclinical modelsstem cells

Identifiers

PMID33632013
PMCPMC9206491
OpenAlexW3131641912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.