ArticleScientific reports2024
A novel micro-CT analysis for evaluating the regenerative potential of bone augmentation xenografts in rabbit calvarias.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Locally delivered dexpanthenol enhances bone regeneration in a rabbit defect model: Implications for oral and maxillofacial surgery.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Alternating Current Stimulation Promotes Healing of Bone Fractures in Rabbits.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparison of four bone substitute types in sinus augmentation with perforated Schneiderian membrane: An experimental study.Journal of periodontology · 2025Article
- From flat bones to functional healing: redefining rodent calvarial defect models for translational bone regeneration research.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Rapid assessment of the osteogenic capacity of hydroxyapatite/aragonite using a murine tibial periosteal ossification model.Bioactive materials · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Guided Bone Regeneration is a common procedure, yet, as new grafting materials are being introduced into the market, a reliable evaluation method is required. Critical size defect in animal models provides an accurate simulation, followed by histological sections to evaluate the new bone formation. However, histology is destructive, two-dimensional and technique-sensitive. In this study we developed a novel volumetric Micro-CT analysis to quantify new bone formation characteristics. Eight adult female New Zealand white rabbits were subjected to calvarial critical-size defects. Four 8 mm in diameter circular defects were preformed in each animal, to allow random allocation of four treatment modalities. All calvarias were scanned using Micro-CT. Each defect was segmented into four equal parts: pristine bone, outer, middle, and inner. Amira software (v. 6.3, www.fei.com ) was used to calculate the new bone volume in each region and compare it to that of the pristine bone. All grafting materials demonstrated that new bone formation decreased as it moved inward. Only the inner region differed across grafting materials (p = 0.001). The new Micro-CT analysis allowed us to divide each defect into 3D regions providing better understanding of the bone formation process. Amongst the various advantages of the Micro-CT, it enables us to quantify the graft materials and the newly formed bone independently, and to describe the defect morphology in 3D (bi- vs. uni-cortical defects). Providing an insight into the inner region of the defect can better predict the regenerative potential of the bone augmentation graft material. Therefore, the suggested Micro-CT analysis is beneficial for further developing of clinical approaches.
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.