ArticleProgress in biomaterials2018
Allogenic vs. synthetic granules for bone tissue engineering: an in vitro study.
Article in Progress in biomaterials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Progress of Bone Grafting: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Review
- Enhancing osteogenesis and mandibular defect repair with magnesium-modified acellular bovine bone matrix.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of Osteoblastic Differentiation of Human Periodontal Ligament Stem Cells through Application of Two β-tricalcium Phosphate Products: AnJournal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) · 2022Article
- Biocompatibility of a HA/β-TCP/C Scaffold as a Pulp-Capping Agent for Vital Pulp Treatment: An In Vivo Study in Rat Molars.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare human dental pulp stem cells' (DPSCs) attachment, proliferation and osteogenic differentiation on allogenic and synthetic biphasic bone granules. In this in vitro study, two types of bone granules were used: allograft [freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA)] and biphasic granules [hydroxyapatite/beta-tricalcium phosphate (HA/β-TCP)]. By isolation of DPSCs, their attachment to bone granules was observed by scanning electron microscope (SEM) at day 1 and 7 of cultivation. Vital cells were measured by MTT assay at 1, 3, and 7 days of cell culture. Comparison of vital cells at different time points was considered as cell proliferation. Finally, differentiation of DPSCs was evaluated by measurement of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity 3, 7, 14, and 21 days after cell seeding in standard and osteogenic media. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA with a significant level of 0.05. Attachment of DPSCs on FDBA granules seemed relatively stronger. The number of cells (based on MTT values) and ALP activity of the cells cultured on both study groups increased between time points (p ≤ 0.001). FDBA granules had more cells compared to HA/β-TCP granules (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between ALP activity of two study groups cultured in the standard medium (p = 0.347) and they were both higher than the control group (p < 0.05). In the osteogenic medium, FDBA group had significantly higher ALP activity compared to HA/β-TCP (p = 0.035) and control (p = 0.001) groups while there was no significant difference between ALP activity of HA/β-TCP and control groups (p = 0.645). In conclusion, current in vitro study revealed that FDBA granules have more potential in supporting DPSCs attachment and proliferation and inducing their ALP activity compared to HA/β-TCP granules. Therefore, FDBA could serve as a proper bone substitute material.
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.