ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Histomorphometric Comparison between Two Types of Acellular Dermal Matrix Grafts: A Mini Pig Animal Model Study.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Allogeneic acellular dermal matrix versus connective tissue graft for multiple RT2 gingival recessions: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Immunohistological Evaluation of Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Grafting Using a Porcine Dermal Matrix-A Human Histological Study.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
- A Comparative Study on Two Types of Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix Sponges Prepared by Thermal Crosslinking and Thermal-Glutaraldehyde Crosslinking Matrix Microparticles.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix: An Alternative to Connective Tissue Graft-A Narrative Review.International journal of dentistry · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acellular dermal matrix grafts (ADMG) have been used as soft tissue graft substitutes for autografts in periodontal plastic surgical procedures. They have benefits like avoiding a second surgical site and patient morbidity that have been associated with autografts, but there is limited evidence available on their tissue response and wound healing process. This histomorphometric animal model study was carried out in mini pigs and it aimed to compare the two types of ADMG materials of porcine derivative with a control group through observation of parameters like epithelial and Keratinized layer thickness, angiogenesis, cellularity, matrix resorption, and inflammatory infiltrate. The surgical technique involved punctures on the edentulous areas stripping the epithelial tissue and exposing the underlying connective tissue, placement of the ADMGs in the appropriate control and test sites. Following this, gingival biopsies were procured at three different time intervals of 15, 45, and 90 days. There were significant differences in epithelial and Keratinized layer thickness among the three groups. This study concluded that there was no clear consensus on which graft material was superior but it gave an insight into the tissue response and wound healing process associated with the graft materials.
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.