ArticleScientific reports2021
Application of cryopreservation to tooth germ transplantation for root development and tooth eruption.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We cryopreserved mouse tooth germs with widely open cervical margins of the enamel organ to overcome difficulties in cryoprotectant permeation and tested their efficacy by transplanting them into recipient mice. The upper right first molar germs of 8-day-old donor mice were extracted and categorized into the following four groups according to cryopreservation time: no cryopreservation, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months. The donor tooth germs were transplanted into the upper right first molar germ sockets of the 8-day-old recipient mice. The upper left first molars of the recipient mice were used as controls. The outcome of the transplantation was assessed at 1, 2, and 3 weeks after transplantation. Stereomicroscopic evaluation revealed that most of the transplanted teeth erupted by 3 weeks after transplantation. Micro-computed tomography analysis revealed root elongation in the transplanted groups as well as in the controls. There was no significant difference between the cryopreserved and non-cryopreserved transplanted teeth, but the roots of the cryopreserved teeth were significantly shorter than those of the control teeth. Histological examination revealed root and periodontal ligament formations in all the transplanted groups. These results suggest that the transplantation of cryopreserved tooth germs facilitates subsequent root elongation and tooth eruption.
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.