ArticlePolymers2022
Biocompatibility Assessment of Two Commercial Bone Xenografts by In Vitro and In Vivo Methods.
Article in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of decellularization methods for scaffold production: advantages, disadvantages, biosafety and modifications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Tissue Sources Influence the Morphological and Morphometric Characteristics of Collagen Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration.Polymers · 2024Article
- Tomographic and Electron Microscopy Description of Two Bone-Substitute Xenografts for the Preservation of Dental Alveoli.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Comparing the effects of BoneClinical and experimental dental research · 2024Article
- Effect of Porcine- and Bovine-Derived Xenografts with Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose for Bone Formation in Rabbit Calvaria Defects.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparison of Two Bovine Commercial Xenografts in the Regeneration of Critical Cranial Defects.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Bone substitutes based on xenografts have been used for a long time in bone regeneration thanks to their inductive capacity for bone tissue regeneration. Some bone-based scaffolds have been modified by adding collagen and other proteins to improve their regenerative capacity and prevent migration and aggregation, especially particles. However, rejection of this graft has been reported due to protein residues caused by poor material preparation. We compared the in vitro and in vivo biological response of two commercial xenografts (InterOss
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.