ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Histomorphometric, Immunohistochemical and Microtomographic Comparison between Autogenous and Xenogenous Bone Blocks for Mandibular Lateral Augmentation in Rabbits.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Descriptive Histological and Histomorphometrical Comparison of Four Xenogeneic and Synthetic Bone Blocks for Mandibular Onlay Augmentation in Rabbits.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Implants Placed with a Ring Technique Using Inlay and Onlay Block Xenografts in the Mandible of Rabbits.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Histological Comparison of Collagenated Cancellous Equine Bone Blocks Used as Inlay or Onlay for Lateral Bone Augmentation in Rabbits.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe volumetric and biological behaviors of equine block grafts compared with autogenous block grafts have not yet been assessed. Hence, the aim of the present study was to compare-by means of histomorphometry, immunohistochemistry and microtomography-the graft incorporation and remodeling processes of autogenous and equine xenogenous bone blocks used for mandibular lateral augmentation in rabbits.
methodsAutogenous bone grafts harvested from the iliac bony crest and equine block grafts were secured to the lateral aspect of the mandible angle of eighteen rabbits. The healing after 7, 20 and 60 days was assessed in six animals each period.
resultsAfter 60 days, new bone was present 24.2 ± 11.2% and 31.6 ± 13.3% in the autograft and xenograft groups, respectively. A better integration to the recipient sites was observed in the autogenous compared with the xenogenous blocks.
conclusionsBoth xenogenous and autogenous bone blocks presented similar percentages of newly formed bone over time. However, bone volume, the quality of the grafted area and graft incorporation to the recipient sites were superior in the autogenous compared with the equine xenogenous graft sites.
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.