ReviewPharmaceutics2022
A Narrative Review of Cell-Based Approaches for Cranial Bone Regeneration.
Review in Pharmaceutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knockdown of MEPE Promotes Cranial Defect Repair and Activates the cAMP/PKA Signaling Pathway.Biochemical genetics · 2026Article
- Enhancement of in vitro and in vivo bone repair performance of decalcified bone/gelma by desferrioxamine.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bespoke Implants for Cranial Reconstructions: Preoperative to Postoperative Surgery Management System.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Application of mesenchymal stem cell sheet for regeneration of craniomaxillofacial bone defects.Stem cell research & therapy · 2023Review
- Exosome-shuttled mitochondrial transcription factor A mRNA promotes the osteogenesis of dental pulp stem cells through mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation activation.Cell proliferation · 2022Article
- Poly (Butylene Succinate)/Silicon Nitride Nanocomposite with Optimized Physicochemical Properties, Biocompatibility, Degradability, and Osteogenesis for Cranial Bone Repair.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Current cranial repair techniques combine the use of autologous bone grafts and biomaterials. In addition to their association with harvesting morbidity, autografts are often limited by insufficient quantity of bone stock. Biomaterials lead to better outcomes, but their effectiveness is often compromised by the unpredictable lack of integration and structural failure. Bone tissue engineering offers the promising alternative of generating constructs composed of instructive biomaterials including cells or cell-secreted products, which could enhance the outcome of reconstructive treatments. This review focuses on cell-based approaches with potential to regenerate calvarial bone defects, including human studies and preclinical research. Further, we discuss strategies to deliver extracellular matrix, conditioned media and extracellular vesicles derived from cell cultures. Recent advances in 3D printing and bioprinting techniques that appear to be promising for cranial reconstruction are also discussed. Finally, we review cell-based gene therapy approaches, covering both unregulated and regulated gene switches that can create spatiotemporal patterns of transgenic therapeutic molecules. In summary, this review provides an overview of the current developments in cell-based strategies with potential to enhance the surgical armamentarium for regenerating cranial vault defects.
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.