↓ Skip to main content

A rabbit model for experimental alveolar cleft grafting

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
A rabbit model for experimental alveolar cleft grafting
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12967-017-1155-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammad Kamal, Lars Andersson, Rene Tolba, Alexander Bartella, Felix Gremse, Frank Hölzle, Peter Kessler, Bernd Lethaus

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to develop an animal model for creating alveolar cleft defects with properly simulated clinical defect environment for tissue-engineered bone-substitute materials testing without compromising the health of the animal. Cleft creation surgery was aimed at creating a complete alveolar cleft with a wide bone defect with an epithelial lining (oral mucosa) overlying the cleft defect. A postmortem skull of a New Zealand White (NZW) rabbit skull (Oryctolagus cuniculus) underwent an osteological and imaging survey. A pilot postmortem surgery was conducted to confirm the feasability of a surgical procedure and the defect was also radiologically confirmed and illustrated with micro-computed tomography. Then, a surgical in vivo model was tested and evaluated in 16 (n = 16) 8-week-old NZW rabbits to create in vivo alveolar cleft creation surgery. Clinical examination and imaging analysis 8 weeks after cleft creation surgery revealed the establishment of a wide skeletal defect extending to the nasal mucosa simulating alveolar clefts in all of the rabbits. Our surgical technique was successful in creating a sizable and predictable model for bone grafting material testing. The model allows for simulating the cleft site environment and can be used to evaluate various bone grafting materials in regard to efficacy of osteogenesis and healing potential without compromising the health of the animal.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 54%
Engineering 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Sports and Recreations 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 23 32%
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 24 February 2017.
All research outputs
#20,407,586
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#3,326
of 4,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,605
of 311,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#64
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 311,668 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.