ArticleClinical oral investigations2020
Osseous ingrowth in allogeneic bone blocks applied for vertical bone augmentation: a preclinical randomised controlled study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Viable cryopreserved human bone graft exhibit superior osteogenic properties in mandibular lateral augmentation.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Animal models of vertical bone augmentation (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021Review
- 3D-Printed Barrier Membrane Using Mixture of Polycaprolactone and Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate for Regeneration of Rabbit Calvarial Defects.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Zoledronate Causes a Systemic Shift of Macrophage Polarization towards M1 In Vivo.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- A Novel Resorbable Composite Material Containing Poly(ester-co-urethane) and Precipitated Calcium Carbonate Spherulites for Bone Augmentation-Development and Preclinical Pilot Trials.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the present study was the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of osseous graft consolidation using allogeneic bone blocks for vertical bone augmentation in an animal model. MATERIAL AND
methodsStandardised allogeneic and autologous bone blocks were fixed on the frontal skull of 20 adult female pigs and covered with a resorbable collagen membrane. Animals were sacrificed after 2 and 6 months. Specimens were histologically and histomorphometrically analysed focusing on the amount of vital bone, residual bone substitute material and connective tissue. Furthermore, the amount of expression of bone matrix proteins (collagen type I and osteocalcin) and de novo vessel formation (von Willebrand factor) were quantified by immunohistochemistry.
resultsSignificantly more allogeneic bone blocks failed for both evaluation time points (p < 0.05). Allogeneic blocks showed significantly less vital bone with more connective tissue formation compared to autologous bone blocks. Increased vessel formation could be detected for both evaluation time points in the contact area of autologous bone with local bone. The expression of collagen type I and osteocalcin was significantly lower in the allogeneic bone graft.
conclusionsAllogeneic cancellous bone blocks showed a significantly higher failure rate compared to autologous bone blocks. Allogeneic bone blocks seemed to negatively affect bone formation or negatively influence the host in the long term, and increased connective tissue formation and block loss should be anticipated. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In order to maintain patient safety and treatment success clinicians should be persuaded to make a conscious choice of the applied biomaterials with regard to their components and structure.
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.