ArticleBDJ open2020
Mega-oss and Mega-TCP versus Bio-Oss granules fixed by alginate gel for bone regeneration.
Article in BDJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative In Vitro Evaluation and Osteogenic Mechanisms of Representative Bone Graft Substitutes: Bioactive Glass, Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate, and Deproteinized Bovine Bone.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Correction of large jawbone defect in the mouse using immature osteoblast-like cells and a 3D polylactic acid scaffold.PNAS nexus · 2022Article
- Biocompatibility Assessment of Two Commercial Bone Xenografts by In Vitro and In Vivo Methods.Polymers · 2022Article
- The Effect of Low-Temperature Thermal Processing on Bovine Hydroxyapatite Bone Substitutes, toward Bone Cell Interaction and Differentiation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Mechanisms of bone remodeling and therapeutic strategies in chronic apical periodontitis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Review
- BDJ Open (2019-2020) and the advantages of open access publishing.British dental journal · 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
OBJECTIVES/
aimsBone graft materials are widely used at present because inadequate bone volume is usually found in implant patients. To determine the biocompatibility of a new grafting material, in vitro research is routinely performed before animal experiments and clinical testing. However, during in vitro experiments, bone material particles might move during testing, which could affect the accuracy of the results. MATERIALS AND
methodsTo evaluate the biocompatibility of new bone substitutes, Mega-oss and Mega-TCP were compared with Bio-Oss using osteoblast cells and osteoclast cells fixed with alginate gel. Cell morphology, viability, bone resorption, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity, and staining were tested to compare the biocompatibility differences in the performance of Mega-oss, Mega-TCP, and Bio-Oss.
resultsCells spread better on Mega-oss and Mega-TCP than the round shape on Bio-Oss. The 3-(4,5-dimethyl-2-thiazolyl)-2,5-diphenyl-2-H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) results showed that Mega-oss, Mega-TCP, and sodium alginate had good viability. Meanwhile, Mega-oss and Mega-TCP had the same osteoblast differentiation ability as Bio-Oss. The resorption rates of Mega-TCP and Mega-oss were higher than those of Bio-Oss (24.4%, 15.3%, and 3.3%, respectively).
conclusionMega-oss and Mega-TCP might be useful alternative bone graft materials compared with Bio-Oss. In addition, fixing the materials with sodium alginate gel could be a new method for in vitro bone material experiments.
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.