↓ Skip to main content

Novel use of cranial epidural space in rabbits as an animal model to investigate bone volume augmentation potential of different bone graft substitutes

Overview of attention for article published in Head & Face Medicine, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Novel use of cranial epidural space in rabbits as an animal model to investigate bone volume augmentation potential of different bone graft substitutes
Published in
Head & Face Medicine, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13005-016-0131-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ivan Valdivia-Gandur, Wilfried Engelke, Víctor Beltrán, Eduardo Borie, Ramón Fuentes, María Cristina Manzanares-Céspedes

Abstract

The success of bone augmentation to a major degree depends on the biomechanics and biological conditions of the surrounding tissues. Therefore, an animal model is needed providing anatomical sites with similar mechanical pressures for comparing its influence on different biomaterials for bone regeneration. The present report describes the new bone formation associated to biomaterial in a bursa created in the epidural space, between dura mater and cranial calvaria, under the constant pressure of cerebrospinal fluid. Five adult California rabbits were used for the trial. In each animal, two bursae were created in the epidural spaces, in the anterior part of the skull, below both sides of the interfrontal suture. The spaces between dura mater and cranial calvaria were filled with in-situ hardening biphasic calcium phosphate containing hydroxyapatite and beta tricalcium-phosphate (BCP), in-situ hardening phase-pure beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) or without any biomaterials (sham). After 90 days, the animals were sacrificed, and the defect sites were extracted and processed for histomorphometric analysis by optical and backscattered electron microscopy. The cranial epidural spaces created (n = 10) could be preserved by the application both BCP (n = 3) and β-TCP biomaterials (n = 3) in all experimental sites. The sites augmented with BCP showed less new bone formation but a trend to better volume preservation than the sites augmented with β-TCP. However, the bone in the BCP sites seemed to be more mature as indicated by the higher percentage of lamellar bone in the sites. In contrast, the created space could not be preserved, and new bone formation was scarce in the sham-operated sites (n = 4). The experimental bursae created bilaterally in the epidural space allows comparing objectively bone formation in relation to biomaterials for bone regeneration under permanent physiological forces from cerebrospinal fluid pressure.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Student > Master 3 20%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 53%
Sports and Recreations 1 7%
Materials Science 1 7%
Unspecified 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2016.
All research outputs
#4,765,024
of 8,806,948 outputs
Outputs from Head & Face Medicine
#66
of 214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,480
of 303,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head & Face Medicine
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,806,948 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 303,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.