ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2021
Microtomographic reconstruction of mandibular defects treated with xenografts and collagen-based membranes: A pre-clinical minipig model.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Histological and Clinical Evaluation of Long-Term Outcomes of Bovine Bone-Derived Xenografts in Oral Surgery: A Systematic Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Challenges and limitations in developing of a new maxillary standardized rat alveolar bone defect model to study bone regenerative approaches in oral and maxillofacial surgery.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Critical-sized marginal defects around implants treated with xenografts in rabbits.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2024Article
- A comparative analysis of particulate bovine bone substitutes for oral regeneration: a narrative review.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024Review
- Comparison of Injectable Biphasic Calcium Phosphate and a Bovine Xenograft in Socket Preservation: Qualitative and Quantitative Histologic Study in Humans.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe goal of this study was to evaluate hard tissue response following guided bone regeneration using commercially available bovine bone grafts and collagen membranes; bilayer collagen membrane and porcine pericardium-based membrane, by means of a non-destructive three-dimensional (3D) computerized volumetric analysis following microtomography reconstruction. MATERIAL AND
methodsBone regenerative properties of various bovine bone graft materials were evaluated in the Göttingen minipig model. Two standardized intraosseous defects (15mm x 8mm x 8mm) were created bilaterally of the mandible of eighteen animals (n=72 defects). Groups were nested within the same subject and randomly distributed among the sites: (i) negative control (no graft and membrane), (ii) bovine bone graft/bilayer collagen membrane (BOB) (iii) Bio-Oss® bone graft/porcine pericardium-based membrane (BOJ) and (iv) cerabone® bone graft/porcine pericardium-based membrane (CJ). Samples were harvested at 4, 8, and 12-week time points (n=6 animal/time point). Segments were scanned using computerized microtomography (μCT) and three dimensionally reconstructed utilizing volumetric reconstruction software. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS with a significance level of 5%.
resultsFrom a temporal perspective, tridimensional evaluation revealed gradual bone ingrowth with the presence of particulate bone grafts bridging the defect walls, and mandibular architecture preservation over time. Volumetric analysis demonstrated no significant difference between all groups at 4 weeks (p>0.127). At 8 and 12 weeks there was a higher percentage of new bone formation for control and CJ groups when compared to BOB and BOJ groups (p<0.039). The natural bovine bone graft group showed more potential for graft resorption over time relative to bovine bone graft, significantly different between 4 and 8 weeks (p<0.003).
conclusionsVolumetric analysis yielded a favorable mandible shape with respect to time through the beneficial balance between graft resorption/bone regenerative capacity for the natural bovine bone graft.
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.