ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2022
A Comparative Histomorphometric Analysis of Two Biomaterials for Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: A Randomized Clinical, Crossover, and Split-Mouth Study.
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of deproteinized bovine bone particle size on histological outcomes in sinus floor elevation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of implant dentistry · 2023Pooled it
- Bioactive Scaffolds as a Promising Alternative for Enhancing Critical-Size Bone Defect Regeneration in the Craniomaxillofacial Region.ACS applied bio materials · 2023Review
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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Considering oral rehabilitation with dental implants, many studies have aimed at improving bone regeneration through the use of biomaterials. Objective: This study aimed at comparing bone neoformation in patients undergoing bilateral maxillary sinus surgery with two bovine biomaterials. Materials and Methods: This is a randomized, blinded, clinical crossover, and divided mouth study. Ten participants with an indication of maxillary sinus enlargement were selected and underwent surgical treatment with Bio-Oss® graft biomaterial (graft 1) on one side and Lumina-Porous® graft biomaterial (graft 2) on the other. The samples were collected after nine months and fixed and then decalcified in 10% ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) solution for 30 days to process and make histological slides. Connective and bone tissue were further analyzed to identify the amount of newly formed bone. Results: The graft 1 group had a greater formation of vital mineralized tissue when compared to the graft 2 group ( Conclusion: Every day, new alternative biomaterials are offered as an option in oral rehabilitation. In this study, both treatments induced bone neoformation after 9 months; however, the group treated with Bio-Oss® showed a higher percentage of vital mineralized bone tissue.
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.