Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36302644›Full record

ArticleJournal of periodontal & implant science2022

Evaluation of regeneration after the application of 2 types of deproteinized bovine bone mineral to alveolar bone defects in adult dogs.

Dajung Lee, Yoonsub Lee, Sungtae Kim, Jung-Tae Lee, Jin-Soo Ahn

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dajung Lee *Department of Dental Biomaterials Science and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6977-6515
Yoonsub Lee *Department of Periodontology, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5105-711X
Sungtae KimDepartment of Periodontology, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6361-4104
Jung-Tae LeeDepartment of Periodontics, One-Stop Specialty Center, Seoul National University, Dental Hospital, Seoul, Korea. jungtae1308@hanmail.net.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5383-3004
Jin-Soo AhnDepartment of Dental Biomaterials Science and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. ahnjin@snu.ac.kr.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6978-5342
Seoul National University · KRSeoul National University Dental Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the preclinical results of 2 types of commercially available deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) when applied to alveolar bone defects in dogs.

methodsThis study was conducted using 6 beagles. Alveolar defects in the mandible were formed and filled with 2 DBBMs produced by a similar procedure. Defects were randomly assigned to be filled using DBBM 1 or 2. All defects were covered with a collagen membrane and had a healing period of 12 weeks. After the dogs were sacrificed, histological, histomorphometric, and linear/volumetric analyses were performed.

resultsBoth DBBM groups showed similar histological findings, demonstrating that bone remodeling had occurred and new bone had formed. The residual bone particles were surrounded by newly formed vital bone. In the histomorphometric analysis, the ratio of the area of vital bone and residual bone substitute in DBBM 2 (38.18% and 3.47%, respectively) was higher than that of DBBM 1 (33.74% and 3.41%, respectively), although the difference was not statistically significant. There were also no statistically significant differences between both groups in linear and volumetric analyses using micro-computed tomography scans and digitized images of dental casts.

conclusionsIn the present study, DBBM 1and 2, which were produced by similar processes, showed similar results in histological, histomorphometric, and volumetric analyses. Further studies are needed to identify more specific differences between the 2 DBBMs.

Indexed as

Animal modelBiocompatible materialsBone regenerationBone resorptionBone substituteXenograft

Identifiers

PMID36302644
PMCPMC9614180
OpenAlexW4285156300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.