ArticleRevista brasileira de ortopedia
COMPARATIVE STUDY ON USE OF PLATELET-RICH PLASMA ALONE AND IN COMBINATION WITH ALPHA-TRICALCIUM PHOSPHATE CEMENT FOR BONE REPAIR IN RATS.
Article in Revista brasileira de ortopedia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effect of alpha-tricalcium phosphate (α-TCP) cement combined with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on osteogenesis, and to compare the results with use of PRP alone.
methodsA bilateral defect was produced in rat femurs and was filled with one of two types of treatments (PRP or α-TCP + PRP). The outcomes were evaluated after four and eight weeks. Radiographic images provided values for the lesion area, and histology (picrosirius staining) indicated the area of new bone formation.
resultsThe means relating to the lesion area of the α-TCP + PRP group (2.64 ± 2.07 and 1.91 ± 0.93 mm(2), after four and eight weeks, respectively) showed numerically better but non-significant results (p > 0.05) than those seen in the PRP group (5.59 mm 2 ± 2.69 and 3.23 ± 1.46 mm 2, after four and eight weeks, respectively). The mean new bone formation rates were 62.7% ± 12.1 and 79.01% ± 6.25 in the PRP group, and 73.3% ± 12.7 and 85.86% ± 10.45 in α-TCP + PRP group, after four and eight weeks, respectively (p > 0.05).
conclusionThe data from this study suggest that treatment with α-TCP cement combined with PRP does not show any significant difference in comparison with PRP alone. However, there is a possible early effect on bone regeneration when the two biomaterials are applied together.
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.