Effects of osteogenic medium on healing of the experimental critical bone defect in a rabbit model
Bone, ISSN: 8756-3282, Vol: 63, Page: 53-60
2014
- 32Citations
- 35Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations32
- Citation Indexes32
- 32
- CrossRef22
- Captures35
- Readers35
- 35
Article Description
Today, finding an ideal biomaterial to treat the large bone defects, delayed unions and non-unions remains a challenge for orthopedic surgeons and researchers. Several studies have been carried out on the subject of bone regeneration, each having its own advantages. At the same time, a variety of disadvantages still remain. The present study has been designed in vivo to evaluate the effects of osteogenic medium on healing of experimental critical bone defect in a rabbit model. Twenty New Zealand albino rabbits, 12 months old, of both sexes, weighing 2.0 ± 0.5 kg were used in this study. An approximately 10 mm segmental defect was created in the mid portion of each radius as a critical size bone defect. In the osteogenic medium group (n = 5) 1 ml osteogenic medium, in the maintenance medium group (n = 5) 1 ml maintenance medium, and in the normal saline group (n = 5) 1 ml normal saline were injected in the defected area while the defects of the rabbits of the control group (n = 5) were left empty. Radiological evaluation was done on the 1st day and then at the 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th weeks post injury. Biomechanical and histopathological evaluations were done 8 weeks post injury. The radiological, histological and biomechanical findings of the present study indicated a superior bone healing capability in the osteogenic and maintenance medium groups, by the end of 8 weeks post-surgery, in comparison to the normal saline and control groups. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the osteogenic medium and maintenance medium could promote bone regeneration in long bone defects better than the control group in rabbit model.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8756328214000544; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2014.02.010; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84896055608&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24582803; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S8756328214000544; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2014.02.010
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know