Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34193933›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Evaluation of different grafting materials for alveolar cleft repair in the context of orthodontic tooth movement in rats.

Stephan Christian Möhlhenrich, Kristian Kniha, Zuzanna Magnuska, Benita Hermanns-Sachweh, Felix Gremse, Frank Hölzle, Gholamreza Danesh, Ali Modabber

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Stephan Christian MöhlhenrichDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Witten/Herdecke, Alfred-Herrhausen Str. 45, 58455, Witten, Germany. stephan.moehlhenrich@uni-wh.de.
Kristian KnihaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Zuzanna MagnuskaInstitute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, RWTH Aachen University, Forckenbeckstraße 55, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Benita Hermanns-SachwehImplant Pathology, ZBMT, Campus Melaten, Pauwelsstraße 17, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Felix GremseInstitute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, RWTH Aachen University, Forckenbeckstraße 55, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Frank HölzleDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Gholamreza DaneshDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Witten/Herdecke, Alfred-Herrhausen Str. 45, 58455, Witten, Germany.
Ali ModabberDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To minimize the postoperative risks posed by grafting autologous transplants for cleft repair, efforts are being made to improve grafting materials for use as potential alternatives. The aim of this study was to compare the bone graft quality of different bone substitutes including the gold standard autografts during the healing processes after cleft repair in the context of orthodontic treatment. In 21 Wistar rats, a complete, continuity-interrupting cleft was created. After 4 weeks, cleft repair was performed using autografts from the hips' ischial tuberosity, human xenografts, or synthetic bone substitutes [beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP)/hydroxyapatite (HA)]. After another 4 weeks, the first molar movement was initiated in the reconstructed jaw for 8 weeks. The bone remodeling was analyzed in vivo using micro-computed tomography (bone mineral density and bone volume fraction) and histology (new bone formation). All the grafting materials were statistically different in bone morphology, which changed during the treatment period. The β-TCP/HA substitute demonstrated less resorption compared to the autologous and xenogeneic/human bone, and the autografts led to a stronger reaction in the surrounding bone. Histologically, the highest level of new bone formation was found in the human xenografts, and the lowest was found in the β-TCP/HA substitute. The differences between the two bone groups and the synthetic materials were statistically significant. Autografts were confirmed to be the gold standard in cleft repair with regard to graft integration. However, parts of the human xenograft seemed comparable to the autografts. Thus, this substitute could perhaps be used as an alternative after additional tissue-engineered modification.

Indexed as

Bone TransplantationTooth Movement TechniquesAlveolar ProcessAnimalsAutograftsBone SubstitutesCleft PalateHydroxyapatitesMaleRatsRats, WistarBone Substituteshydroxyapatite-beta tricalcium phosphateHydroxyapatites

Identifiers

PMID34193933
PMCPMC8245488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.