Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7840421›Full record

ArticleAnatomy and embryology1994

Simulation of bone resorption-repair coupling in vitro.

S J Jones, C Gray, A Boyde

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Anatomy and embryology, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S J JonesDepartment of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, University College, London, UK.
C Gray
A Boyde
University College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the normal adult human skeleton, new bone formation by osteoblasts restores the contours of bone surfaces following osteoclastic bone resorption, but the evidence for resorption-repair coupling remains circumstantial. To investigate whether sites of prior resorption, more than the surrounding unresorbed surface, attract osteoblasts or stimulate them to proliferate or make new matrix, we developed a simple in vitro system in which resorption-repair coupling occurs. Resorption pits were produced in mammalian dentine or bone slabs by culturing chick bone-derived cells on them for 2-3 days. The chick cells were swept off and the substrata reseeded with rat calvarial osteoblastic cells, which make bone nodules in vitro, for periods of up to 8 weeks. Cell positions and new bone formation were investigated by ordinary light microscopy, fluorescence and reflection confocal laser microscopy, and SEM, in stained and unstained samples. There was no evidence that the osteoblasts were especially attracted to, or influenced by, the sites of resorption in dentine or bone before cell confluence was reached. Bone formation was identified by light microscopy by the accumulation of matrix, staining with alizarin and calcein and by von Kossa's method, and confirmed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) by using backscattered electron (BSE) and transmitted electron imaging of unembedded samples and BSE imaging of micro-milled embedded material. These new bone patches were located initially in the resorption pits. The model in vitro system may throw new light on the factors that control resorption-repair coupling in the mineralised tissues in vivo.

Indexed as

Bone RemodelingAnimalsAnimals, NewbornBone ResorptionCell AdhesionCell DivisionCells, CulturedDentinMicroscopy, ConfocalMicroscopy, Electron, Scanning TransmissionMicroscopy, FluorescenceOsteoblastsRats

Identifiers

PMID7840421
OpenAlexW2044058367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.