ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2011
Biological monitoring of a xenomaterial for grafting: an evaluation in critical-size calvarial defects.
Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biological evaluation of critical bone defect regeneration using hydroxyapatite/ alginate composite granules.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Guided Bone Regeneration in Critical Defects Using Bovine and Porcine Collagen Membranes: Histomorphometric and Immunohistochemical Analyses.International journal of biomaterials · 2021Article
- Osteopromotion Capacity of Bovine Cortical Membranes in Critical Defects of Rat Calvaria: Histological and Immunohistochemical Analysis.International journal of biomaterials · 2020Article
- Analysis of bone formation and membrane resorption in guided bone regeneration using deproteinized bovine bone mineral versus calcium sulfate.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2018Article
- The effect of 4-hexylresorcinol on xenograft degradation in a rat calvarial defect model.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our purpose was to evaluate the osteoconduction potential of mixed bovine bone (MBB) xenografts as an alternative for bone grafting of critical-size defects in the calvaria of rats. After surgery, in the time intervals of 1, 3, 6, and 9 months, rats were killed and their skulls collected, radiographed and histologically prepared for analysis. The data obtained from histological analysis reported that the particles of MBB did not promote an intense immunological response, evidencing its biocompatibility in rats. Our results clearly showed the interesting evidence that MBB was not completely reabsorbed at 9 months while a small amount of newly formed bone was deposited by osteoprogenitor cells bordering the defect. However, this discrete bone-forming stimulation was unable to regenerate the bone defect. Overall, our results suggest that the properties of MBB are not suitable for stimulating intense bone regeneration in critical bone defects in rats.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21424598What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.