ReviewTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2022
Full-Thickness Oral Mucoperiosteal Defects: Challenges and Opportunities.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- An injectable tough hydrogel sealant enabling rapid hemostasis and promoting oral tissue regeneration.Bioactive materials · 2026Article
- Development and Characterization of a Novel Composite Hydrogel Biomaterial for Improved Mucoperiosteal Wound Repair.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2024Article
- Biofabrication Strategies for Oral Soft Tissue Regeneration.Advanced healthcare materials · 2024Review
- Recent trends and perspectives in reconstruction and regeneration of intra/extra-oral wounds using tissue-engineered oral mucosa equivalents.The Japanese dental science review · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Regenerative engineering strategies for the oral mucoperiosteum, as may be needed following surgeries, such as cleft palate repair and tumor resection, are underdeveloped compared with those for maxillofacial bone. However, critical-size tissue defects left to heal by secondary intention can lead to complications, such as infection, fistula formation, scarring, and midface hypoplasia. This review describes current clinical practice for replacing mucoperiosteal tissue, including autografts and allografts. Potentially paradigm-shifting experimental regenerative engineering strategies for mucoperiosteal wound healing, such as hybrid grafts and engineered matrices, are also discussed. Throughout the review, the advantages and disadvantages of each replacement or regeneration strategy are outlined in the context of clinical outcomes, quality of life for the patient, availability of materials, and cost of care. Finally, future directions for research and development in the area of mucoperiosteum repair are proposed, with an emphasis on identifying globally available and affordable solutions for promoting mucoperiosteal regeneration. Impact statement Unassisted oral mucoperiosteal wound healing can lead to severe complications such as infection, fistulae, scarring, and developmental abnormalities. Thus, strategies for promoting wound healing must be considered when mucoperiosteal defects are incident to oral surgery, as in palatoplasty or tumor resection. Emerging mucoperiosteal tissue engineering strategies, described in this study, have the potential to overcome the limitations of current standard-of-care donor tissue grafts. For example, the use of engineered mucoperiosteal biomaterials could circumvent concerns about tissue availability and immunogenicity. Moreover, employment of tissue engineering strategies may improve the equity of oral wound care by increasing global affordability and accessibility of materials.
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.