Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34161876›Full record

ReviewTranslational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine2021

Oral wound healing models and emerging regenerative therapies.

Afra I Toma, Julia M Fuller, Nick J Willett, Steven L Goudy

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Translational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 112 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
112citing papers in PubMed
14.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

112 citing papers in PubMed, 203 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Green tea (Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

52 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Afra I TomaWallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: atoma@emory.edu.
Julia M FullerDepartment of Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: julia.m.fuller@emory.edu.
Nick J WillettWallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Department of Orthopedics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; The Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: nick.willett@emory.edu.
Steven L GoudyWallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Department of Otolaryngology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; Department of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: steven.goudy@emory.edu.
Emory University · USThe Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering · US

Funding

An immunomodulatory approach to improve oral cavity wound healingR01DE028905 · NIDCR · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI GOUDY, STEVEN L · 2020 to 2024
$2.7M
NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE028905
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following injury, the oral mucosa undergoes complex sequences of biological healing processes to restore homeostasis. While general similarities exist, there are marked differences in the genomics and kinetics of wound healing between the oral cavity and cutaneous epithelium. The lack of successful therapy for oral mucosal wounds has influenced clinicians to explore alternative treatments and potential autotherapies to enhance intraoral healing. The present in-depth review discusses current gold standards for oral mucosal wound healing and compares endogenous factors that dictate the quality of tissue remodeling. We conducted a review of the literature on in vivo oral wound healing models and emerging regenerative therapies published during the past twenty years. Studies were evaluated by injury models, therapy interventions, and outcome measures. The success of therapeutic approaches was assessed, and research outcomes were compared based on current hallmarks of oral wound healing. By leveraging therapeutic advancements, particularly within in cell-based biomaterials and immunoregulation, there is great potential for translational therapy in oral tissue regeneration.

Indexed as

Regenerative MedicineWound HealingAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalEpitheliumHumansMouth MucosaTissue Scaffolds

Identifiers

PMID34161876
PMCPMC8380729
OpenAlexW3175938459

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.