ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Cranial Bone Repair and Regeneration After Trauma: Forensic and Clinical Medico-Legal Consequences.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Bone Regeneration in Rabbit Calvarial Defects Treated With Mineralized Collagen-Based Scaffolds Using In Vivo MicroCT and Three-Dimensional Rendering.Current protocols · 2026Article
- Assessment of Healing Potential of Alginate and Chitosan-Based Biomaterials for Cranial Bone Defects in Experimental Model.BioMed research international · 2026Article
- How Emerging Nanomaterials are Effective in Bone Regeneration?International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cranial bone defects caused by trauma present significant clinical challenges but also difficulties in their forensic analysis. The complexity of cranial anatomy, limited vascularization, and proximity to neural structures complicate natural bone regeneration, often requiring surgical intervention and the use of complex materials and techniques. This review aims to identify relevant data for forensic analysis regarding bone regeneration after trauma, with an emphasis on the materials used and their interpretation in medico-legal contexts. It moves beyond a simple clinical perspective, providing a detailed medico-legal analysis of cranial bone repair and regeneration after trauma. This review aims to give a comprehensive analysis of the forensic and medico-legal consequences associated with cranial reconstruction using autogenic, allogenic, xenogenic, and synthetic materials. It gives a pioneering focus regarding an understudied but critical aspect of forensic and legal medicine, both to postmortem and to clinical elements. By detailing the unique radiographic signatures and physical characteristics of various reconstruction materials, we provide the specialists with a go-to material for the interpretation of these materials in forensic contexts. Furthermore, we will provide a detailed analysis of medico-legal risks, mainly those associated with malpractice claims, focusing our attention on the process of informed consent but also the management and interpretation of surgery-related complications.
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.