ArticleJournal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran)2015
Regenerative Effects of Three Types of Allografts on Rabbit Calvarium: An Animal Study.
Article in Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing the effects of BoneClinical and experimental dental research · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Integrity of Allogeneic Bone Processed with High Hydrostatic Pressure: A Pilot Animal Study.Biomaterials research · 2024Article
- Histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of two grafting materials Cenobone and ITB-MBA in open sinus lift surgery.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
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
objectivesThe aim of this study was to histologically compare the regenerative properties of two allografts manufactured by two Iranian companies. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study, four 8-mm defects were produced in the calvaria of 12 rabbits. In three defects, three types of allografts namely ITB, CenoBone and Grafton were placed and one defect served as control. Samples were prepared and histomorphometric evaluations were carried out after healing periods of four weeks (interval 1) and eight weeks (interval 2). Qualitative and quantities variables were compared and analyzed with SPSS software.
resultsMild inflammation was observed in 45% and 12.5% of the samples in the first and second intervals, respectively. Foreign body reaction was observed in only 5% of the samples. The quality of regenerated bone was immature, mixed and lamellar in 54.5%, 15.9% and 4.5% of the samples, respectively. The rate of allograft resorption was the highest and lowest in the CenoBone and Grafton samples, respectively. The mean amount of regenerated bone was higher in areas containing Grafton; however, the differences were not statistically significant.
conclusionDespite the differences in the numerical values of bone regeneration, there were no statistically significant differences in bone generation among the material groups, and allografts manufactured in Iran can be suitable alternatives to Grafton with the same good properties. Further studies are necessary to clarify the efficacy of these allografts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27507993PMC4977406What 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.