↓ 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 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 16%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 39%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 6%
Materials Science 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 35%
Attention Score in Context

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
#15,395,259
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Head & Face Medicine
#127
of 334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,749
of 416,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head & Face Medicine
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 334 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 416,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.