ArticleScientific reports2025
Impacts of ultrasonic osteotomy devices on bone regeneration and brain activity in a mouse model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ultrasonic osteotomy devices (UODs) have emerged as precise bone-cutting instruments with soft tissue-sparing benefits; yet their impact on bone healing and adjacent neural tissue remains underexplored. This study aimed to investigate the effects of UODs versus conventional rotary high-speed burr (HSB) on bone healing and central nervous functions using mouse split calvarial bone defect models. Bilateral parietal bone defects were created in the skulls of mice using UOD (right) and HSB (left). Intraoperative heat generation was recorded using a thermal camera. Bone healing progress was assessed via longitudinal micro-CT over 8 weeks, supplemented by histological (H&E staining) and neurofunctional (cylinder test) analyses at 2-, 4-, 6-, and 8-week intervals. All 24 mice completed the 8-week follow-up without complications. Micro-CT revealed comparable bone defect closure rates between groups (p > 0.05). Despite irrigation, UOD generated transient temperature spikes exceeding 60 °C. Histologically, UOD-treated bone adjacent to defects displayed loosened, wave-like multilayered structures. UOD sides also showed brain tissue hyalinization and structural defects, correlating with transient parietal lobe dysfunction in cylinder tests. UOD induced transient thermal spikes, altered bone morphology, and subtle neurofunctional changes. Caution is advised when deploying UODs near neural tissues or delicate bone regions.
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.