ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Evaluation of a Granular Bone Substitute for Bone Regeneration Using an Optimized In Vivo Alveolar Cleft Model.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Suitability of Mg-Nd and Mg-Zn Alloys to Obtain Biodegradable Structures for Bone Defects.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Novel Approaches for the Treatment of Maxillofacial Defects.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Characterization and functional prediction of the dental plaque microbiome in patients with alveolar clefts.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Alveolar cleft is a common congenital deformity that requires surgical intervention, notably using autologous bone grafts in young children. Bone substitutes, in combination with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), have shown promise in the repair of these defects. This study aimed to evaluate the regenerative capabilities of a granular bone substitute using an optimized alveolar cleft model. Thirty-six rats underwent a surgical procedure for the creation of a defect filled with a fragment of silicone. After 5 weeks, the silicone was removed and the biomaterial, with or without Wharton's jelly MSCs, was put into the defect, except for the control group. The rats underwent μCT scans immediately and after 4 and 8 weeks. Analyses showed a statistically significant improvement in bone regeneration in the two treatment groups compared with control at weeks 4 and 8, both for bone volume (94.64% ± 10.71% and 91.33% ± 13.30%, vs. 76.09% ± 7.99%) and mineral density (96.13% ± 24.19% and 93.01% ± 27.04%, vs. 51.64% ± 16.51%), but without having fully healed. This study validates our optimized alveolar cleft model in rats, but further work is needed to allow for the use of this granular bone substitute in the treatment of bone 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.