ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Comparison of non-transport disc and conventional distraction osteogenesis for mandibular segmental defect reconstruction.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn animal model of non-transport disc distraction osteogenesis (NTDDO) was developed for repairing segmental mandibular defects in dogs. This study aimed to determine whether any difference exists in osteogenesis within the distraction zone between non-transport disc distraction osteogenesis (NTDDO) and conventional distraction osteogenesis (CDO), in order to provide a reference for its clinical application in the repair of segmental mandibular defects.
methodsTwenty-four dogs were divided into two groups, and animal models of NTDDO and CDO were established respectively.Samples were taken at 0, 2, 4,and 8 weeks of consolidation. The new bone in the distraction zone was observed or detected by gross condition, X-ray film, Micro CT, biomechanical test. The histological manifestation of new bone was observed by HE staining. The expression of the osteoblast marker Runx2, and the endothelial cell marker CD31 were detected by immunohistochemistry and microvessel density was calculated.
resultsThe results from gross specimens, radiographs, and HE staining indicated no significant differences in new bone formation within the distraction gap between the NTDDO and CDO groups at any time point. Micro-CT analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in BMD, BV/TV, Tb.Th, Tb.N, or Tb.Sp (P > 0.05). Similarly, biomechanical testing showed no significant difference in maximum load (P > 0.05). Immunohistochemical staining demonstrated comparable expression levels of CD31 and Runx2, with no significant difference in neovascular density (P > 0.05).
conclusionsNon-transport disc distraction osteogenesis achieves osteogenic quality equivalent to conventional distraction osteogenesis, with inferior alveolar neurovascular resection posing no adverse effects on bone regeneration. The underlying mechanisms, particularly the potential interplay between nerve regeneration and periosteal contributions, warrant further exploration.
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.