The Effects of Nonvascularized Versus Vascularized Bone Grafting on Calvarial Defect Healing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It remains unknown whether bone graft vascularity influences calvarial healing. The purposes of this study were (1) to develop a model to study nonvascularized and vascularized calvarial grafts as well as (2) to compare effects of bone graft vascularity on calvarial healing. Bilateral calvarial defects were created in 26 Wistar rats. The defects were left empty within 1 parietal region. On the contralateral side, the defects were partially closed with native parietal bone (control group, n = 6), nonvascularized (N-V, n = 10), or vascularized bone grafts (VAS, n = 10). The vascularized grafts were supplied by perforating dural arterioles. Bone mineralization and healing patterns from serial microcomputed tomographic scans were compared within and across the groups using parametric and nonparametric tests. Differences in bone mineral content across sides were significant between the groups at weeks 6 (P = 0.016) and 12 (P = 0.025). Bone formation was greater within both the control and VAS groups versus the N-V group at weeks 6 and 12 (P < 0.05). Healing patterns differed between the groups (P < 0.05), progressing through islands of new bone formation within the control and VAS groups while limited to defect margins on the N-V graft side. In conclusion, a bilateral calvarial defect model was established to study bone graft vascularity. Bone quantity and healing patterns differed in the presence of the nonvascularized versus vascularized grafts. Although the calvarial defect model is often applied within the plastic surgery literature to study bone substitutes, greater understanding of basic mechanisms influencing calvarial healing is first needed to avoid confounding results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".