ArticleInternational journal of nanomedicine2019
Microporous elastomeric membranes fabricated with polyglycerol sebacate improved guided bone regeneration in a rabbit model.
Article in International journal of nanomedicine, 2019. 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Decellularized extracellular matrix materials for treatment of ischemic cardiomyopathy.Bioactive materials · 2024Review
- Synthetic materials in craniofacial regenerative medicine: A comprehensive overview.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- On the road to smart biomaterials for bone research: definitions, concepts, advances, and outlook.Bone research · 2021Review
- Photopolymerizable Biomaterials and Light-Based 3D Printing Strategies for Biomedical Applications.Chemical reviews · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to fabricate guided bone regeneration (GBR) membrane using polyglycerol sebacate (PGS) and investigate the impact of scaffold pore size on osteogenesis. MATERIALS AND
methodsPGS microporous membrane was fabricated by salt-leaching technique with various pore sizes. Twenty-eight male New Zealand rabbits were randomly divided into four groups: 25 µm PGS membrane, 53 µm PGS membrane, collagen membrane, and blank control group. Subsequently, standardized and critical-sized tibia defects were made in rabbits and the defective regions were covered with the specifically prepared membranes. After 4 and 12 weeks of in vivo incubation, bone samples were harvested from tibia. Micro-computed tomography scanning was performed on all bone samples. A three-dimensional visible representation of the constructs was obtained and used to compare the ratios of the ossifying volume to total construct volume (bone volume to tissue volume [BV/TV]) of each sample in different groups; then, bone samples were stained with H&E and Masson's trichrome stain for general histology.
resultsAt 4 weeks, the BV/TV in the 25 µm PGS group was found higher than that in the 53 µm PGS and collagen groups. At 12 weeks, the bone defect site guided by the 25 µm PGS membrane was almost completely covered by the new bone. However, the site guided by the 53 µm PGS membrane or collagen membrane was covered only most of the defects and the left part of the defect was unoccupied. Histological observation further verified these findings.
conclusionWe thus concluded that the 25 µm PGS membrane played an advantageous role during 4-12 weeks as compared with those earlier degraded counterparts.
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.