Cargando…
Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation Using ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines on Animal Models Used for Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis
SIMPLE SUMMARY: Periosteal distraction osteogenesis (PDO) is a promising new technique for bone regeneration, as it avoids some of the complications that other techniques present. In this review, were examined the animal models used in preclinical studies carried out so far, as well as the quality o...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8144990/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33923253 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11051233 |
_version_ | 1783697075829997568 |
---|---|
author | García-González, Mario Muñoz, Fernando González-Cantalapiedra, Antonio López-Peña, Mónica Saulacic, Nikola |
author_facet | García-González, Mario Muñoz, Fernando González-Cantalapiedra, Antonio López-Peña, Mónica Saulacic, Nikola |
author_sort | García-González, Mario |
collection | PubMed |
description | SIMPLE SUMMARY: Periosteal distraction osteogenesis (PDO) is a promising new technique for bone regeneration, as it avoids some of the complications that other techniques present. In this review, were examined the animal models used in preclinical studies carried out so far, as well as the quality of the studies using the ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments). The models that have shown the best results in terms of handling and fewer complications are the rabbit and the rat. The minipig is not recommended due to its difficult oral hygiene and handling. The quality of the studies has increased since the implementation of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010. Future studies shall be improved in terms of transparency, comparability, and reproducibility. ABSTRACT: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize all the preclinical studies carried out in periosteal distraction osteogenesis (PDO) in order to evaluate the quality using the ARRIVE guidelines. The animal models used, and the influence of the complications, were analysed in order to establish the most appropriate models for this technique. The PRISMA statements have been followed. Bibliographic sources have been consulted manually by two reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated using the SYRCLE tool for animal studies, and the quality of the studies with the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. The selection criteria established by expert researchers were applied to decide which studies should be included in the review, that resulted in twenty-four studies. Only one achieved the maximum score according to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. The rabbit as an animal model has presented good results in PDO, both for calvaria and jaw. Rats have shown good results for PDO in calvaria. The minipig should not be recommended as an animal model in PDO. Despite the increase in the quality of the studies since the implementation of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, it would be necessary to improve the quality of the studies to facilitate the transparency, comparison, and reproducibility of future works. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8144990 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81449902021-05-26 Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation Using ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines on Animal Models Used for Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis García-González, Mario Muñoz, Fernando González-Cantalapiedra, Antonio López-Peña, Mónica Saulacic, Nikola Animals (Basel) Review SIMPLE SUMMARY: Periosteal distraction osteogenesis (PDO) is a promising new technique for bone regeneration, as it avoids some of the complications that other techniques present. In this review, were examined the animal models used in preclinical studies carried out so far, as well as the quality of the studies using the ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments). The models that have shown the best results in terms of handling and fewer complications are the rabbit and the rat. The minipig is not recommended due to its difficult oral hygiene and handling. The quality of the studies has increased since the implementation of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010. Future studies shall be improved in terms of transparency, comparability, and reproducibility. ABSTRACT: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize all the preclinical studies carried out in periosteal distraction osteogenesis (PDO) in order to evaluate the quality using the ARRIVE guidelines. The animal models used, and the influence of the complications, were analysed in order to establish the most appropriate models for this technique. The PRISMA statements have been followed. Bibliographic sources have been consulted manually by two reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated using the SYRCLE tool for animal studies, and the quality of the studies with the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. The selection criteria established by expert researchers were applied to decide which studies should be included in the review, that resulted in twenty-four studies. Only one achieved the maximum score according to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. The rabbit as an animal model has presented good results in PDO, both for calvaria and jaw. Rats have shown good results for PDO in calvaria. The minipig should not be recommended as an animal model in PDO. Despite the increase in the quality of the studies since the implementation of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, it would be necessary to improve the quality of the studies to facilitate the transparency, comparison, and reproducibility of future works. MDPI 2021-04-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8144990/ /pubmed/33923253 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11051233 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review García-González, Mario Muñoz, Fernando González-Cantalapiedra, Antonio López-Peña, Mónica Saulacic, Nikola Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation Using ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines on Animal Models Used for Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis |
title | Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation Using ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines on Animal Models Used for Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis |
title_full | Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation Using ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines on Animal Models Used for Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis |
title_fullStr | Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation Using ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines on Animal Models Used for Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis |
title_full_unstemmed | Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation Using ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines on Animal Models Used for Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis |
title_short | Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation Using ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines on Animal Models Used for Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis |
title_sort | systematic review and quality evaluation using arrive 2.0 guidelines on animal models used for periosteal distraction osteogenesis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8144990/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33923253 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11051233 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT garciagonzalezmario systematicreviewandqualityevaluationusingarrive20guidelinesonanimalmodelsusedforperiostealdistractionosteogenesis AT munozfernando systematicreviewandqualityevaluationusingarrive20guidelinesonanimalmodelsusedforperiostealdistractionosteogenesis AT gonzalezcantalapiedraantonio systematicreviewandqualityevaluationusingarrive20guidelinesonanimalmodelsusedforperiostealdistractionosteogenesis AT lopezpenamonica systematicreviewandqualityevaluationusingarrive20guidelinesonanimalmodelsusedforperiostealdistractionosteogenesis AT saulacicnikola systematicreviewandqualityevaluationusingarrive20guidelinesonanimalmodelsusedforperiostealdistractionosteogenesis |