A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Bone induction capacity of the periosteum and neonatal dura in the setting of the rat zygomatic arch fracture model. | LitMetric

Bone induction capacity of the periosteum and neonatal dura in the setting of the rat zygomatic arch fracture model.

Arch Facial Plast Surg

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Sişli Etfal State Hospital, and Otorhinolaryngology, Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey.

Published: November 2003

Objectives: Osteogenic properties of the dura and periosteum are thought to contribute to the regenerative capacity of membranous bone tissue. The purpose of this investigation was to elucidate (1) whether dura without underlying neural tissues can induce osteogenesis, (2) to what extent the periosteum participates in membranous bone healing, and (3) the difference between dura-induced and periosteum-induced osteogenesis.

Methods: A standardized 2-mm defect was created within the middle portion of each zygomatic arch in 30 Wistar albino rats. The rats were divided into 3 groups, 10 animals in each group. In group 1, the periosteum was removed and neonatal dura grafts were transplanted onto the zygomatic arch bone defect circumferentially. In group 2, the overlying periosteum was preserved. In group 3, the periosteum was removed. At 3 and 10 weeks, animals from each group were killed, and specimens were obtained. Data were collected from the 3-dimensional computed tomographic scans and histologic studies to compare the extent of bony repair.

Results: Fracture sites demonstrated osteogenesis associated with chondrogenesis in groups 1 and 2 and only limited osteogenesis with no chondrogenesis in group 3. In some animals in group 3, cortical bone ends underwent resorption. In groups 1 and 2, bone defects were obliterated by the formation of the mature compact bone at 10 weeks postoperatively. The difference between bone regeneration in these groups was not significant (P =.16). In group 3, the defects failed to heal by bony union, and in most of the samples the fibrous union was observed instead. The difference between groups 1 and 3 was significant (P =.03). The difference between groups 2 and 3 was not significant (P =.09).

Conclusions: The trend toward significance is in agreement with the current clinical practice of preserving periosteum in the manipulations of the membranous bone defects. Newborn dura can exert a potentiating effect on osteogenesis.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archfaci.5.4.301DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

zygomatic arch
12
membranous bone
12
animals group
12
bone
9
neonatal dura
8
group
8
group periosteum
8
periosteum removed
8
bone defects
8
difference groups
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!