ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2021
In situ soft tissue regeneration using periosteal distraction: A preliminary study in the rat calvarial model.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes of masseter muscle after mandible distraction osteogenesis in patients with Hemifacial microsomia: a retrospective study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimIn this study, we aimed to evaluate soft tissue generated by periosteal distraction.
backgroundManagement of soft tissue defects represents a challenge in dentistry. Previous periosteal distraction studies documented partial fill of the distraction space with newly-generated bone and fibrous connective tissue. MATERIAL AND
methodsTitanium meshes were inserted in subperiosteal tunnels in the calvaria of 20 rats through coronal incision. The devices were immediately activated after insertion by elevation of one side at 1 mm/day for 3 days. Rats were then divided into two groups (n = 10). Animals were sacrificed after 2 weeks (Group 1) and after 4 weeks (Group 2). Distraction sites specimens were embedded in paraffin and analyzed histologically and histomorphometrically.
resultsIn both groups, new periosteum was regenerated and covered the original bone surface in the distraction site. Distraction spaces showed a predomination of hyper-vascularized connective tissue and little new bone formation near to the stable end of the device. The 4-week findings showed more organized collagen fibers with less vascularity compared to the 2-week findings.
conclusionThe periosteal distraction technique can effectively regenerate connective tissue. It may open a new modality in the guided tissue regeneration for soft tissue augmentation.
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.