ArticleClinical oral investigations2016
Effects of chrondro-osseous regenerative compound associated with local treatments in the regeneration of bone defects around implants: an in vivo study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pre-Clinical Models in Implant Dentistry: Past, Present, Future.Biomedicines · 2021Review
- Prevascularized hydrogels with mature vascular networks promote the regeneration of critical-size calvarial bone defects in vivo.Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the use of a chondroitin sulfate and glycosaminoglycan-based chrondro-osseous regenerative compound (CORC) with different local treatments for bone regeneration in dehiscence defects. The hypothesis is that CORC can enhance bone regeneration with or without local treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwelve mongrel dogs received four implants each in the right femur. Bony defects (4-mm height × 4-mm width) were created and locally treated as follows: reabsorbable membrane (Mem), hidroxyapatite (HA), hydroxyapatite covered with membrane (HA+Mem), or left untreated (Con). Six dogs received one pill of the CORC daily. After 90 days, the implants were retrieved, and histological sections were obtained. The height of bone formation, new bone area (NBA), and bone to implant contact (BIC) within the threads were evaluated to assess the effects of the use of CORC to promote bone regeneration in the defects. Results were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's test with 5% significance level.
resultsCORC was not capable to increase the height of bone formation, NBA, and BIC. When the local treatments were analyzed regardless of the use of CORC, HA+Mem and Ha presented higher BIC and height of bone formation. There was no difference for NBA among the local treatments.
conclusionsThe hypothesis was rejected since the use of CORC has not increased any of the parameters evaluated. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dehiscence-like defects can compromise soft tissue support and result in loss of periodontal health and implants. Hydroxyapatite can induce bone regeneration in the defects created. CORC in the formulation used in this study did not promote further bone regeneration in dehiscence-like defects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.