ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2022
Analyses of Bone Regeneration Capacity of Freeze-Dried Bovine Bone and Combined Deproteinized-Demineralized Bovine Bone Particles in Mandibular Defects: The Potential Application of Biological Forms of Bovine-Bone Filler.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Engineering injectable bone/bioadhesive grafts delivery system with self-healing properties for bone regeneration.Bioactive materials · 2025Article
- The Therapeutic Scope of Orofacial Mesenchymal Stem Cells.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Osteoinductive and Osteogenic Capacity of Freeze-Dried Bovine Bone Compared to Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral Scaffold in Human Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cell Culture: An In Vitro Study.European journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Guide bone regeneration (GBR) reconstruction of extensive alveolar bone defect due to infected radicular cyst enucleation: 2 case reports.International journal of surgery case reports · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate bone regeneration capacity of FDBX granules compared to composite DBBM/DFDBX granules for filling of bone defect in rabbit mandible. MATERIAL AND
methodsCritical size defects were created in 45 rabbits' mandible. The defect in the control group is left untreated, while in other groups the defects were filled with FDBX granules and composite DBBM/DFDBX granules, respectively. Specimens were collected at 2, 4, and 8 weeks for histology and immunohistochemical analyses. Significant difference is set at
resultsThe osteoblast-osteoclast quantification, osteoblast expression of Runx2, alkaline phosphatase, collagen-I, and osteocalcin, and osteoclast expression of receptor activator of NF-kB ligand (RANKL) and osteoprotegerin (OPG) in FDBX groups were statistically comparable (
conclusionComposite DBBM/DFDBX granules, within the limitation of this study, has better bone forming capacity than FDBX granules for filling of bone defects in the mandible.
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.