ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Comparison of the effects of different osteotomy methods on bone healing; an experimental study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBone healing after osteotomy remains a major issue in orthopedics. This study aimed to evaluate the radiological, histopathological, and biomechanical aspects of bone healing using three different osteotomy techniques.
methodsFifty four Wistar Albino male rats were used. The animals were randomly divided into 3 groups as gigli (n:18), saw (n:18) and drill+osteotome (n:18). Transverse osteotomy was applied to the left femur with the gigli wire, microsaw and drill+osteotome. All femurs were evaluated radiologically, biomechanically and histopathologically at the end of the 15th, 30th and 45th days.
resultsNo significant differences in mean radiological and histological scores were observed among the gigli, saw, and drill+osteotome groups at most time points, except for a difference in radiological scores on day 30. The drill+osteotome group demonstrated more advanced callus formation, whereas the gigli group more often showed minimal or no callus. Biomechanical scores were lower in the gigli group on day 30, while no difference was observed between the saw and drill+osteotome groups.
conclusionsIn the present study, the drill combined with an osteotome demonstrated superior biomechanical and radiological outcomes during the early phase of bone healing. However, in the later stages, all three osteotomy techniques exhibited comparable healing characteristics, suggesting that the initial advantage of the drill-assisted method may diminish over time.
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.