Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33949796›Full record

ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2021

Comparative barrier membrane degradation over time: Pericardium versus dermal membranes.

Fabien Bornert, Valentin Herber, Rebecca Sandgren, Lukasz Witek, Paulo G Coelho, Benjamin E Pippenger, Shakeel Shahdad

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Fabien BornertFaculty of Dental Surgery, Department of Oral Surgery, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Valentin HerberFaculty of Dental Surgery, Department of Oral Surgery, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Rebecca SandgrenBiomedical Services Division, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Lukasz WitekDepartment of Biomaterials, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1458-6527
Paulo G CoelhoDepartment of Biomaterials, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, New York, USA.
Benjamin E PippengerDepartment of Preclinical & Translational Research, Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7990-5555
Shakeel ShahdadInstitute of Dentistry, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5354-9847
New York University · USLund University · SEMedical University of Graz · ATQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversité de Strasbourg · FRUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe effectiveness of GBR procedures for the reconstruction of periodontal defects has been well documented. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the degradation kinetics and biocompatibility of two resorbable collagen membranes in conjunction with a bovine xenograft material. MATERIALS AND

methodsLower premolars and first molars were extracted from 18 male Yucatan minipigs. After 4 months of healing, standardized semi-saddle defects were created (12 mm × 8 mm × 8 mm [l˙̇ × W˙ × d]), with 10 mm between adjacent defects. The defects were filled with a bovine xenograft and covered with a either the bilayer collagen membrane (control) or the porcine pericardium-derived collagen membrane (test). Histological analysis was performed after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of healing and the amount of residual membrane evaluated. Non-inferiority was calculated using the Brunner-Langer mixed regression model.

resultsHistological analysis indicated the presence of residual membrane in both groups at all time points, with significant degradation noted in both groups at 12 weeks compared to 4 weeks (p = .017). No significant difference in ranked residual membrane scores between the control and test membranes was detected at any time point.

conclusionsThe pericardium-derived membrane was shown to be statistically non-inferior to the control membrane with respect to resorption kinetics and barrier function when utilized for guided bone regeneration in semi-saddle defects in minipigs. Further evaluation is necessary in the clinical setting.

Indexed as

Bone RegenerationMembranes, ArtificialAnimalsCattleCollagenHumansMalePericardiumSwineSwine, MiniatureCollagenMembranes, ArtificialBioGidebovine xenograftcollagen membraneguided bone regenerationJasonperiodontal defects

Identifiers

PMID33949796
PMCPMC8543466
OpenAlexW3159871005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.