ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
Computed tomography and histological evaluation of xenogenic and biomimetic bone grafts in three-wall alveolar defects in minipigs.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Cross-Linked Collagen Membranes for Bone Regeneration: In Vitro and Clinical Studies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Oral cavity-derived stem cells and preclinical models of jaw-bone defects for bone tissue engineering.Stem cell research & therapy · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the performance of a xenograft (XG) and a biomimetic synthetic graft (SG) in three-wall alveolar defects in minipigs by means of 3D computerised tomography and histology. MATERIALS AND
methodsEight minipigs were used. A total of eight defects were created in the jaw of each animal, three of which were grafted with XGs, three with SGs, and two were left empty as a negative control. The allocation of the different grafts was randomised. Four animals were euthanised at 6 weeks and four at 12 weeks. The grafted volume was then measured by spiral computed tomography to assess volume preservation. Additionally, a histological analysis was performed in undecalcified samples by backscattered scanning electron microscopy and optical microscopy after Masson's trichrome staining.
resultsA linear mixed-effects model was applied considering four fixed factors (bone graft type, regeneration time, anatomic position, and maxilla/mandible) and one random factor (animal). The SG exhibited significantly larger grafted volume (19%) than the XG. The anterior sites preserved better the grafted volume than the posterior ones. Finally, regeneration time had a positive effect on the grafted volume. Histological observations revealed excellent osseointegration and osteoconductive properties for both biomaterials. Some concavities found in the spheroidal morphologies of SGs were associated with osteoclastic resorption.
conclusionsBoth biomaterials met the requirements for bone grafting, i.e. biocompatibility, osseointegration, and osteoconduction. Granule morphology was identified as an important factor to ensure a good volume preservation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Whereas both biomaterials showed excellent osteoconduction, SGs resulted in better volume preservation.
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.