ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2021
Bone regeneration of a polymeric sponge technique-Alloplastic bone substitute materials compared with a commercial synthetic bone material (MBCP+TM technology): A histomorphometric study in porcine skull.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2021. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implant stability and clinical outcome between implant placement using internal sinus floor elevation with alloplastic bone material grafting and without grafting: A 1-year randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Histomorphometric Assessment of Non-Decalcified Plastic-Embedded Specimens for Evaluation of Bone Regeneration Using Bone Substitute Materials-A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Influence of physicochemical characteristics of calcium phosphate-based biomaterials in cranio-maxillofacial bone regeneration. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of preclinical models.Materials today. Bio · 2024Article
- Bone regeneration of a polymeric sponge technique-Alloplastic bone substitute materials compared with a commercial synthetic bone material (MBCP+TM technology): A histomorphometric study in porcine skull.Clinical and experimental dental research · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPolymeric sponge technique is recommended for developing the desired porosity of Biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) which may favor bone regeneration. PURPOSE: To investigate the healing of BCP with ratio of HA30/β-TCP70 (HA30) and HA70/β-TCP30 (HA70) polymeric sponge preparation, compare to commercial BCP (MBCP+TM). MATERIALS AND
methodsMaterials were tested X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern and scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis. In eight male pigs, six calvarial defects were created in each subject. The defects were the filled with 1 cc of autogenous bone, MBCP+TM (MBCP), HA30, HA70, and left empty (negative group). The new bone formations, residual material particles and bone-to-graft contacts were analyzed at 4, 8, 12 and 16 weeks.
resultsFabricated BCP showed well-distributed porosity. At 16 weeks, new bone formations were 45.26% (autogenous), 33.52% (MBCP), 24.34% (HA30), 19.43% (HA70) and 3.37% (negative). Residual material particles were 1.88% (autogenous), 17.58% (MBCP), 26.74% (HA30) and 37.03% (HA70). These values were not significant differences (Bonferroni correction <0.005). Bone-to-graft contacts were 73.68% (MBCP), which was significantly higher than 41.68% (HA30) and 14.32% (HA70; Bonferroni correction <0.017).
conclusionsPolymeric sponge technique offers well-distributed porosity. The new bone formation and residual material particles were comparable to MBCP+TM, but the bone-to-graft contact was lower than MBCP+TM.
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.