ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Novel Subperiosteal Device Geometry and Investigation of Efficacy on Surrounding Bone Formation and Bone-Bonding Strength.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To develop a safer bone-bonding device that promotes early osseointegration with cortical bone perforation, novel subperiosteal device geometries were proposed and evaluated for their ability to facilitate surrounding bone formation and enhance bone-bonding strength. This study used animal experiments and mechanical testing to assess the performance of these designs. The experimental device consisted of two main components: a rounded rectangular plate and a centrally positioned cylinder. To promote the recruitment of bone-marrow-derived factors, slits were incorporated into the cylinder, and a center hole was created directly above it. Four device variations, differing by the presence or absence of the slits and center hole, were fabricated and then subjected to tensile tests for mechanical property evaluation. In the animal experiments, the devices were bilaterally placed on rat tibiae, and after four weeks, bone-bonding strength tests were performed. Additionally, micro-computed tomography and histological analysis of undecalcified sections were conducted. All devices demonstrated early osseointegration, and geometric design differences, specifically the presence or absence of the slits and center hole, significantly affected the mechanical properties and bone induction. However, no significant differences in bone-bonding strength were detected. These findings suggest that the newly formed bone inside the slits and center hole contributes to the reinforcement of the device.
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.