Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31635277›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Comparison of Bone Regeneration between Porcine-Derived and Bovine-Derived Xenografts in Rat Calvarial Defects: A Non-Inferiority Study.

Eun-Bin Bae, Ha-Jin Kim, Jong-Ju Ahn, Hyun-Young Bae, Hyung-Joon Kim, Jung-Bo Huh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Comparing the effects of BoneClinical and experimental dental research · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Eun-Bin BaeDepartment of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Dental and Life Science Institute, BK21 PLUS Project, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Korea. 0228dmqls@hanmail.net.ORCID 0000-0002-9524-3835
Ha-Jin KimDepartment of Oral Physiology, Dental Research Institute, Dental and Life Science Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Korea. ya120010@naver.com.
Jong-Ju AhnDepartment of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Dental and Life Science Institute, BK21 PLUS Project, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Korea. tarov0414@daum.net.ORCID 0000-0002-7771-9190
Hyun-Young BaeDepartment of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Dental and Life Science Institute, BK21 PLUS Project, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Korea. h.02@hanmail.net.ORCID 0000-0001-5404-6942
Hyung-Joon KimDepartment of Oral Physiology, Dental Research Institute, Dental and Life Science Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Korea. hjoonkim@pusan.ac.kr.
Jung-Bo HuhDepartment of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Institute, Dental and Life Science Institute, BK21 PLUS Project, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Korea. neoplasia96@hanmail.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study aimed to compare the bone-regeneration capacity of porcine-derived xenografts to bovine-derived xenografts in the rat calvarial defect model. The observation of surface morphology and in vitro cell studies were conducted prior to the animal study. Defects with a diameter of 8 mm were created in calvaria of 20 rats. The rats were randomly treated with porcine-derived (Bone-XP group) or bovine-derived xenografts (Bio-Oss group) and sacrificed at 4 and 8 weeks after surgery. The new bone regeneration was evaluated by micro-computed tomography (μCT) and histomorphometric analyses. In the cell study, the extracts of Bone-XP and Bio-Oss showed a positive effect on the regulation of osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) without cytotoxicity. The new bone volume of Bone-XP (17.52 ± 3.78% at 4 weeks and 32.09 ± 3.51% at 8 weeks) was similar to that of Bio-Oss (11.6 ± 3.88% at 4 weeks and 25.89 ± 7.43% at 8 weeks) (

Indexed as

bone regenerationbone substituteporcine bonexenograft

Identifiers

PMID31635277
PMCPMC6829332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.