ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2022
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomised trial of the bone formation after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with bovine hydroxyapatite (Cerabone®) and Photobiomodulation: histomorphometric and immunohistochemical analysis.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe repair of bone defects has been the subject of many studies that have shown inconclusive results as to what is the best bone substitute. MATERIAL AND
methodsBone defects (Ø 2 mm) were induced on the tibia of seventy-two rats, which were distributed into the following four groups/treatments (n=18 each): Control: no treatment; EMD: enamel matrix derived protein; PBM: photobiomodulation therapy (660 nm, 0,035 W, 60 s); EMD + PBM: EMD and immediate treatment with PBM (660 nm, 0,035 W, 60 s). Six animals from each group were euthanized after 10, 30 and 60 days. Histological and immunohistochemistry analyses (osteocalcin - OCN and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase - TRAP) were performed with scores for each of the biological events.
resultsAll performed treatments resulted in an increased filling and maturation of bone tissue, being greater in the EMD and EMD + PBM groups in the 30 day period, compared to the Control group. The immunostaining of OCN was greater at 60 days in all treated groups than in the Control over the same period. TRAP immunostaining was higher at 30 days in all treated groups, and lower in groups EMD and PBM after 60 days, compared to the Control over the same period. There was greater immunostaining in the EMD + PBM group after 10 days than in the Control and EMD groups in the same period.
conclusionsThese results lead to the conclusion that treatments with EMD and PBM, both separate and in association were effective in filling and maturing bone tissue in tibial bone cavities, with greater effectiveness in the period of 30 days in the EMD and EMD + PBM groups.
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.