ArticleVeterinary world2024
Comparative biochemical analysis of platelet-rich plasma-chitosan and platelet-rich fibrin-chitosan for treating tibial bone defects in rabbits.
Article in Veterinary world, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Fracture healing can cause serious complications, both preoperatively and postoperatively, including malunion or non-union. Biomaterials can enhance the fracture healing process. This study aimed to compare platelet-rich plasma (PRP)-chitosan and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF)-chitosan on the basis of biochemical parameters for fracture treatment in rabbits. Materials and Methods: This study involved 12 clinically healthy rabbits. After preparing PRP and PRF, a 3-mm bone defect was created in the tibia of each rabbit. The animals were divided randomly into two groups (A and B). Group A received PRP-Chitosan, and Group B received PRF-Chitosan. Bone healing was assessed using biochemical parameters (calcium [Ca], phosphorus [P], serum alkaline phosphatase [ALP], and osteocalcin [Ocn]) at 2-, 4-, 6-, and 8-week postoperatively. The data were compared using repeated-measures analysis of variance (p < 0.05) with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences statistical software. Results: Group-wise comparison showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the groups, except for ALP levels, which were significantly higher in Group B than in Group A (p < 0.05). In the week-wise comparison, there was a significant difference between both groups, as Ca and ALP levels showed significant differences at all weeks postoperatively, whereas Ocn showed a significant difference at 2- and 4-week postoperatively (p < 0.05). However, there was no difference in P levels between the groups at any post-operative week (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Both combinations enhanced bone regeneration. However, PRF-Chitosan is a better combination for bone repair than PRP-Chitosan. There were some limitations of this study, such as a small sample size, only male rabbits were used, and a lack of mechanical testing; these limitations should be addressed in future studies. The insights gained from the present study may open a new approach to the use of a combination of biomaterials for bone healing, which should be further investigated clinically and in other animal models as a future scope.
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.