Histomorphometric Assessment of Non-Decalcified Plastic-Embedded Specimens for Evaluation of Bone Regeneration Using Bone Substitute Materials-A Systematic Review
Rogova VV., Peev S., Yotsova R., Gerova-Vatsova T., Parushev I.
Systematic Review, published in Materials (Basel) (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Materials (Basel) (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39795764
- PMCID
- PMC11722015
- DOI
- 10.3390/ma18010119
- Citations
- 4
Abstract (original English)
With the implementation of bone substitute materials, regeneration strategies have inevitably evolved over the years. Histomorphometry is the optimal means of quantitative evaluation of bone structure and morphology. This systematic review focuses on determining study models, staining methods and histomorphometric parameters used for bone regeneration research on non-decalcified plastic-embedded specimens over the last 10 years. After being subjected to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 118 studies were included in this review. The results establish the most commonly selected animal model is rat, followed by rabbit, sheep and dog. Strong preference for staining samples with toluidine blue was noted. With regard to histomorphometric parameters, terms related to bone were most frequently assessed, amounting to almost half of recorded parameters. New bone formation was the main descriptor of this category. Residual bone graft and non-bone tissue parameters were also often evaluated. With regard to dynamic histomorphometry, mineral apposition rate (MAR) was the parameter of choice for most researchers, with calcein green being the preferred dye for fluorochrome labelling. An overview of the contemporary literature, as well as weaknesses in the current research protocols have been discussed.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.