ArticleBMC oral health2021
Clinical efficacy of mineralized collagen (MC) versus anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) for immediate implant placement in esthetic area: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Evaluation of Bovine- and Porcine-Deproteinized Grafts for Guided Bone Regeneration: An In Vivo Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- CGF with Bio-Oss collagen as grafting materials for simultaneous implant placement after osteotome sinus floor elevation: a prospective study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Translational Experimental Basis of Indirect Adenosine Receptor Agonist Stimulation for Bone Regeneration: A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Mineralized Collagen/Polylactic Acid Composite Scaffolds for Load-Bearing Bone Regeneration in a Developmental Model.Polymers · 2023Article
- Advances in osseointegration of biomimetic mineralized collagen and inorganic metal elements of natural bone for bone repair.Regenerative biomaterials · 2023Review
- Influence of Xenogeneic and Alloplastic Carriers for Bone Augmentation on Human Unrestricted Somatic Stem Cells.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of mineralized collagen (MC) versus anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) for immediate implant placement in esthetic area.
methodsMedical records of Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of Shandong Provincial Hospital were screened for patients who had been treated with immediate implant implantation in the esthetic area using either MC (Allgens®, Beijing Allgens Medical Science and Technology Co., Ltd., China) or Bio-Oss (Bio-Oss®, Geistlich Biomaterials, Wolhusen, Switzerland), between January 2018 and December 2019. All patients fulfilling the in-/exclusion criteria and following followed for a minimum period of 1 year after surgery were enrolled into the presented study. Implant survival rate, radiographic, esthetic and patient satisfactory evaluations were performed.
resultsAltogether, 70 patients were included in the study; a total of 80 implants were inserted. All implants had good initial stability. The survival rate of implants was 100% at 1-year follow-up. The differences in horizontal and vertical bone loss between the MC group (0.72 ± 0.26 mm, 1.62 ± 0.84 mm) and the Bio-Oss group (0.70 ± 0.52 mm, 1.57 ± 0.88 mm) were no significant difference statistically no significant 6 months after permanent restoration. Similar results occurred at 12 months after permanent restoration functional loaded. Clinical acceptability defined by pink esthetic score (PES) ≥ 6 (6.07 ± 1.62 vs. 6.13 ± 1.41) was not significantly different between groups. Patient satisfaction estimated by visual analog scale (VAS) was similar (8.56 ± 1.12 vs. 8.27 ± 1.44), and the difference was no significant difference between the two groups.
conclusionsThe biomimetic MC showed a similar behaviour as Bio-Oss not only in its dimensional tissues changes but also in clinical acceptability and patient satisfaction. Within the limitations of this study, these cases show that MC could be considered as an alternative bone graft in IIP.
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.