ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026
Rat Calvarial Defect Models in Bone Regeneration Research: A Narrative Review of Critical Size and Micro-Computed Tomography Outcome Reporting.
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rat calvarial defect model supports the preclinical evaluation of bone-regenerative approaches relevant to craniofacial reconstruction, including recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) and bone substitutes. However, its invasive nature requires study-specific harm-benefit assessment and application of the 3Rs. This narrative review used a structured PubMed search to examine spontaneous healing in defects smaller than 5 mm and μCT outcome reporting in untreated or control defects. Twenty-four studies of sub-5 mm defects and 45 μCT studies were included. Complete spontaneous healing was not reported in the sub-5 mm studies; only two μCT studies reported regeneration of at least 50% according to their respective outcome measures. Healing generally increased with longer observation periods and smaller defects, although methodological heterogeneity limited comparisons. Inconsistent reporting of acquisition parameters, segmentation thresholds, regions of interest, and numerical outcomes restricted reproducibility and data reuse. Within this PubMed-indexed evidence base, the findings support 5 mm defects as a practical model of incomplete spontaneous healing and indicate that smaller defects also do not reliably heal completely within the observation periods studied. These findings do not directly establish clinical benefit. Future studies should justify the least burdensome model capable of answering the research question, implement replacement, reduction, and refinement, and report standardized bone volume fractions, relevant measures of defect bridging, reproducible imaging methods, and reusable numerical data.
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.