ArticleBiology2022
Bone Graft Packing and Its Association with Bone Regeneration in Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentations: Histomorphometric Analysis of Human Biopsies.
Article in Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Bone Remodeling Dynamics and Bone Vitality Following Standard Bone Augmentation Procedures: A Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Alveolar Ridge Preservation Revisited: A Multimodal Evaluation of Bone Preservation and Regeneration-Preliminary Findings from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- RefinedFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Metrics for studying the porous void space of packed particles.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Three-dimensional printed bioresorbable scaffold for maxillofacial bone reconstruction: A Scoping Review.Brazilian dental journal · 2024Article
- Three-Dimensional Plotted Calcium Phosphate Scaffolds for Bone Defect Augmentation-A New Method for Regeneration.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research in maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) focussed on the optimisation of microstructural parameters such as microporosity and particle size of bone substitute particles (BS). However, little is known about the impact of BS packing and the corresponding (void) interparticular space on bone regeneration. The aim of this study was to characterise the spatial distribution of BS and its association with BS integration 6 ± 1 months after MSFA. Histological thin-ground sections of 70 human sinus biopsies were histomorphometrically analysed: In serial zones of 100 µm proceeding from the sinus floor (SF) up to the apical end of the biopsy, we measured the distribution of BS particles within these zones in terms of volume (BSV/TV), number and size of BS particles, interparticle spacing (BS.Sp) and bone-to-BS contact. BS particles were not homogeneously distributed over the length of biopsies: The first 200 µm directly adjacent to the SF represented a zone poor in BS particles but with high osteogenic potential. Graft packing density increased from the SF towards the apical part of the AA. Integration of BS particles was inversely associated with the distance to the SF and the graft packing density. A high packing density through excessive compaction of BS particles should be avoided to optimise the macrostructural environment for bone regeneration.
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.