ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Impact of DBBM Fragments on the Porosity of the Calvarial Bone: A Pilot Study on Mice.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synthetic sticky bone grafts enhance bone regeneration: a preclinical evaluation in rat models.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2025Article
- Morphological aspects and distribution of granules composed of deproteinized bovine bone or human dentin into a putty mixture: an in vitro study.Head & face medicine · 2023Article
- CBCT for Diagnostics, Treatment Planning and Monitoring of Sinus Floor Elevation Procedures.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Computed Tomography as a Characterization Tool for Engineered Scaffolds with Biomedical Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) is brittle and can break into fragments. Here, we examined whether DBBM fragments have an impact on mice calvarial bone during bone augmentation. DBBM was either randomly crushed (DBBM fragments) or left undisturbed (DBBM granules). Then, DBBM fragments or original DBBM granules were placed onto calvarial bone in 20 BALB/c mice. Following random allocation, ten mice received DBBM fragments and ten mice received original DBBM granules. After fourteen days of healing, micro computed tomography (micro-CT) and histological analysis of the augmented sites were performed. The primary outcome was the porosity of the calvarial bone. The micro-CT analysis revealed that DBBM fragments failed to significantly change the porosity of the calvarial bone as compared with original DBBM granules, despite the slightly higher bone resorption in the DBBM fragment group, 10.3% (CI 6.3-11.6) versus 6.1% (CI 4.1-7.8,
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.