ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Validation of the Chick Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM) Model for Biocompatibility Analysis of Biomaterials in the Context of the 3R-cascade: A Pilot Study.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterization and modeling of additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V alloy with modified surfaces for medical applications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Composite Coating-driven Regulation ofIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Biocompatibility Data from the Subcutaneous and the Calvaria Implantation Model of a Novel Bone Substitute Block.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
- Biologic Functionalization of a Biphasic Bone Substitute With Enamel Matrix Derivative Modulates Early Foreign Body Reaction in a Subcutaneous Mouse Model.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThe present study aimed to compare the tissue responses to biomaterials in the chick chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) model with those from the subcutaneous implantation model in rats at an early time point. It was especially investigated whether histopathological scoring according to DIN EN ISO 10993-6 is also possible after biomaterial implantation using the CAM model and to what extent the values differ from the data obtained from small animal experiments. MATERIALS AND
methodsImplantation of a xenogeneic bone substitute using the CAM model for 24 h and subcutaneous implantation model in rats up to 10 days post implantation were conducted. Standardized histological and histopathological methods were used to apply for histopathological scoring according to DIN EN ISO 10993-6.
resultsThe histological analysis as well as the histo-pathological scoring revealed that the tissue responses to the xenogeneic bone substitute were completely comparable in both organisms with no visible or statistical differences.
conclusionWe suggest that bioincompatible biomaterials can already be sorted out in the context of THE preclinical
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.