Next Article in Journal
Like Mother Like Child: Do Fearful Sows Have Fearful Piglets?
Previous Article in Journal
The Levels of Mineral Elements and Toxic Metals in the Longissimus lumborum Muscle, Hair and Selected Organs of Red Deer (Cervus elaphus L.) in Poland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 11
Issue 5
10.3390/ani11051233
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Edit a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share announcement question_answer thumb_up
...
textsms
...
Review

Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation Using ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines on Animal Models Used for Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis

by
Mario García-González
1,*,
Fernando Muñoz
1,
Antonio González-Cantalapiedra
1,
Mónica López-Peña
1 and
Nikola Saulacic
2
1
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain
2
Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Vera Baumans
Animals 2021, 11(5), 1233; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051233
Received: 9 April 2021 / Revised: 20 April 2021 / Accepted: 22 April 2021 / Published: 24 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Veterinary Clinical Studies)
View Full-Text Download PDF
Browse Figures

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. View Full-Text
Keywords: animal models; periosteal distraction osteogenesis; osteogenic distraction; bone regeneration; systematic review animal models; periosteal distraction osteogenesis; osteogenic distraction; bone regeneration; systematic review
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Supplementary Material

SciFeed

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

García-González, M.; Muñoz, F.; González-Cantalapiedra, A.; López-Peña, M.; Saulacic, N. Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation Using ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines on Animal Models Used for Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis. Animals 2021, 11, 1233. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051233

AMA Style

García-González M, Muñoz F, González-Cantalapiedra A, López-Peña M, Saulacic N. Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation Using ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines on Animal Models Used for Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis. Animals. 2021; 11(5):1233. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051233

Chicago/Turabian Style

García-González, Mario, Fernando Muñoz, Antonio González-Cantalapiedra, Mónica López-Peña, and Nikola Saulacic. 2021. "Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation Using ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines on Animal Models Used for Periosteal Distraction Osteogenesis" Animals 11, no. 5: 1233. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051233

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop