ArticleHeliyon2023
Determination of critical-sized defect of mandible in a rabbit model: Micro-computed tomography, and histological evaluation.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reimagining periodontal regeneration: smart biomaterials for a complex tissue landscape.Regenerative biomaterials · 2026Review
- Critical-sized marginal defects around implants in the rabbit mandible.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024Article
- Review
- Critical-sized marginal defects around implants treated with xenografts in rabbits.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024Article
- Implants Placed with a Ring Technique Using Inlay and Onlay Block Xenografts in the Mandible of Rabbits.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate a rabbit model of mandibular box-shaped defects created through an intraoral approach and determine the minimum size defect that would not spontaneously heal during the rabbit's natural life (or critical-sized defect, CSD). Methods: Forty-five 6-month-old rabbits were randomly divided into five defect size groups (nine each). Mandibular box-shaped defects of different sizes (4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 mm) were created in each hemimandible, with the same width and depth (3 and 2 mm, respectively). Four, 8, and 12 weeks post-surgery, three animals per group were euthanized. New bone formation was assessed using micro-computed tomography (MCT) and histomorphometric analyses. Results: Box-shaped defects were successfully created in the buccal region between the incisor area and the anterior part of the mental foramen in rabbit mandibles. Twelve weeks post-surgery, MCT analysis showed that the defects in the 4, 5, and 6 mm groups were filled with new bone, while those in the 8 and 10 mm groups remained underfilled. Quantitative analysis revealed that the bone mass recovery percentage in the 8 and 10 mm groups was significantly lower than that in the other groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the bone mass recovery percentage between the 8 and 10 mm groups (p > 0.05). Histomorphometric analysis indicated that the area of new bone formation in the 8 and 10 mm groups was significantly lower than that in the remaining groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the new bone area between the 8 and 10 mm groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The dimensions of box-shaped CSD created in the rabbit mandible through an intraoral approach were 8 mm × 3 mm × 2 mm. This model may provide a clinically relevant base for future tissue engineering efforts in the mandible.
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.