Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34409870›Full record

ReviewTissue engineering. Part B, Reviews2022

Full-Thickness Oral Mucoperiosteal Defects: Challenges and Opportunities.

Brittany N Allen, Qi Wang, Yassine Filali, Kristan S Worthington, Deborah S F Kacmarynski

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Development and Characterization of a Novel Composite Hydrogel Biomaterial for Improved Mucoperiosteal Wound Repair.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Brittany N AllenRoy J. Carver Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1713-8009
Qi WangRoy J. Carver Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Yassine FilaliRoy J. Carver Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Kristan S WorthingtonRoy J. Carver Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Deborah S F KacmarynskiDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Carver College of Medicine, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
University of Iowa · US

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM007337 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI GEYER, PAMELA K., LENTZ, STEVEN R · 1985 to 2020
$15.9M
Medical Scientist Training ProgramT32GM139776 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Gordon F Buchanan · 2021 to 2026
$6.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007337NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM139776
6 · The paper itself

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

Cleft PalateNeoplasmsCicatrixHumansQuality of Lifecleft palatemucoperiosteumoral surgerypalatoplastyregenerative medicinetissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID34409870
PMCPMC9469748
OpenAlexW3193641871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.