ReviewPolymers2022
Compositions and Structural Geometries of Scaffolds Used in the Regeneration of Cleft Palates: A Review of the Literature.
Review in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cleft palate (CP) is one of the most common birth defects, presenting a multitude of negative impacts on the health of the patient. It also leads to increased mortality at all stages of life, economic costs and psychosocial effects. The embryological development of CP has been outlined thanks to the advances made in recent years due to biomolecular successions. The etiology is broad and combines certain environmental and genetic factors. Currently, all surgical interventions work off the principle of restoring the area of the fissure and aesthetics of the patient, making use of bone substitutes. These can involve biological products, such as a demineralized bone matrix, as well as natural-synthetic polymers, and can be supplemented with nutrients or growth factors. For this reason, the following review analyzes different biomaterials in which nutrients or biomolecules have been added to improve the bioactive properties of the tissue construct to regenerate new bone, taking into account the greatest limitations of this approach, which are its use for bone substitutes for large areas exclusively and the lack of vascularity. Bone tissue engineering is a promising field, since it favors the development of porous synthetic substitutes with the ability to promote rapid and extensive vascularization within their structures for the regeneration of the CP area.
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.