ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring neovascularization during bone regeneration-a randomized in vivo study in rabbits.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Temporal evolution of postsurgical bone repair in a rabbit model: A [99mTc]Tc-MDP scintigraphic study.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Integrity of Allogeneic Bone Processed with High Hydrostatic Pressure: A Pilot Animal Study.Biomaterials research · 2024Article
- Microvascular morphology alteration using relaxation rate change with gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent in patients with Alzheimer's disease.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMicro-computed tomography (μ-CT) and histology, the current gold standard methods for assessing the formation of new bone and blood vessels, are invasive and/or destructive. With that in mind, a more conservative tool, dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), was tested for its accuracy and reproducibility in monitoring neovascularization during bone regeneration. Additionally, the suitability of blood perfusion as a surrogate of the efficacy of osteoplastic materials was evaluated. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixteen rabbits were used and equally divided into four groups, according to the time of euthanasia (2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks after surgery). The animals were submitted to two 8-mm craniotomies that were filled with blood or autogenous bone. Neovascularization was assessed in vivo through DCE-MRI, and bone regeneration, ex vivo, through μ-CT and histology.
resultsThe defects could be consistently identified, and their blood perfusion measured through DCE-MRI, there being statistically significant differences within the blood clot group between 3 and 6 weeks (p = 0.029), and between the former and autogenous bone at six weeks (p = 0.017). Nonetheless, no significant correlations between DCE-MRI findings on neovascularization and μ-CT (r =-0.101, 95% CI [-0.445; 0.268]) or histology (r = 0.305, 95% CI [-0.133; 0.644]) findings on bone regeneration were observed.
conclusionsThese results support the hypothesis that DCE-MRI can be used to monitor neovascularization but contradict the premise that it could predict bone regeneration as well.
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.