ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Comparison of the Validity of Enzymatic and Immunohistochemical Detection of Tartrate-resistant Acid Phosphatase (TRAP) in the Context of Biocompatibility Analyses of Bone Substitutes.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pilot Case Series of Lateral Ridge Augmentation Using a Collagenated Porcine-Derived Xenograft: Clinical, Histological, and Remodeling Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Low-temperatureIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimMacrophages and biomaterial-induced multinucleated giant cells (BMGCs) are central elements in the tissue reaction cascade towards bone substitute materials (BSM). The enzymatic detection of the lytic enzyme tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) has manifoldly been used to examine the so-called "bioactivity" of BSM. The present study aimed to compare the detection validity and expression pattern of the TRAP enzyme using enzymatic and immunohistochemical detection methods in the context of biocompatibility analyses of BSM. PATIENTS AND
methodsBiopsies from 8 patients were analyzed after sinus augmentation with a xenogeneic bone substitute. Analysis of both macrophage and BMGC polarization were performed by histochemical TRAP detection and immunohistochemical detection of TRAP5a. Histomorphometrical analysis was used for comparison of the TRAP detection of BMGCs.
resultsThe enzymatic TRAP detection method revealed that in 7 out of 8 biopsies only single cells were TRAP-positive, whereas most of the cells and especially the BMGCs were TRAP-negative. The immunohistochemical detection of TRAP5a showed moderate numbers of stained mononuclear cells, while the majority of the BMGCs showed signs of TRAP5a-expression. The enzymatic TRAP detection was comparable to the results obtained via immunohistochemistry only in one case. The histomorphometrical analysis showed that significantly more mononuclear and multinucleated TRAP-positive cells were found using immunohistochemical TRAP5a-staining compared to the enzymatic TRAP detection method. Also, significantly more TRAP-negative BMGCs were found using the enzymatic TRAP detection.
conclusionThe immunohistochemical detection of TRAP is more accurate for examination of the bioactivity and cellular degradability of BSM.
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.