ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2022
Improved Bone Regeneration Using Biodegradable Polybutylene Succinate Artificial Scaffold in a Rabbit Model.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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.
- Improved Bone Regeneration Using Biodegradable Polybutylene Succinate Artificial Scaffold with BMP-2 Protein in a Rabbit Model.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Lignin Reinforcement in Polybutylene Succinate Copolymers.Polymers · 2025Article
- 3D-Printed Polymeric Biomaterials for Health Applications.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Review
- How Is Bone Regeneration Influenced by Polymer Membranes? Insight into the Histological and Radiological Point of View in the Literature.Membranes · 2024Review
- Bilateral Scaphoid Fractures: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Peripheral Nerve Regeneration at 1 Year: Biodegradable Polybutylene Succinate Artificial Scaffold vs. Conventional Epineurial Sutures.Polymers · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The treatment of extensive bone loss represents a great challenge for orthopaedic and reconstructive surgery. Most of the time, those treatments consist of multiple-stage surgeries over a prolonged period, pose significant infectious risks and carry the possibility of rejection. In this study, we investigated if the use of a polybutylene succinate (PBS) micro-fibrillar scaffold may improve bone regeneration in these procedures. In an in vivo rabbit model, the healing of two calvarial bone defects was studied. One defect was left to heal spontaneously while the other was treated with a PBS scaffold. Computed tomography (CT) scans, histological and immunohistochemical analyses were performed at 4, 12 and 24 weeks. CT examination showed a significantly larger area of mineralised tissue in the treated defect. Histological examination confirmed a greater presence of active osteoblasts and mineralised tissue in the scaffold-treated defect, with no evidence of inflammatory infiltrates around it. Immunohistochemical analysis was positive for CD56 at the transition point between healthy bone and the fracture zone. This study demonstrates that the use of a PBS microfibrillar scaffold in critical bone defects on a rabbit model is a potentially effective technique to improve bone regeneration.
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.