ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2022
Fabrication and mechanical properties of newly developed triphasic blocks composed of gypsum-brushite-monetite for bone graft applications.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 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.
- Fabrication and Characterisation of Calcium Sulphate Hemihydrate Enhanced with Zn- or B-Doped Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles for Hard Tissue Restoration.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: A triphasic bone graft block composed of gypsum, brushite, and monetite is expected to be better for regenerating bone than a gypsum-hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate block. Therefore, the aim of this study was to fabricate and evaluate the mechanical properties of a newly developed triphasic block composed of gypsum, brushite, and monetite. Materials and method: Triphasic blocks were prepared by mixing calcium sulfate hemihydrate, brushite, and monetite powders with distilled water at a powder-to-liquid ratio of 0.5. The content of calcium sulfate hemihydrate was fixed at 50%, and the contents of brushite and monetite powders were varied. After molding and setting, the obtained blocks were characterized, and their mechanical properties were evaluated. Results: The triphasic blocks were prepared and could maintain their shape without collapsing. The XRD characterization of the obtained triphasic blocks showed that only three phases existed in the block. Calcium sulfate hemihydrate was transformed into its dihydrate form and provided mechanical strength to the block through a setting mechanism. The transformation of calcium sulfate hemihydrate into its dihydrate crystals formed an interlocked structure that was disrupted in triphasic blocks, as observed in SEM images. The disruption of the interlocked structure resulted in lower mechanical strength of the obtained triphasic blocks compared to the set gypsum control. The variation in brushite and monetite composition did not affect the mechanical properties of the triphasic blocks. Conclusion: The triphasic gypsum-brushite-monetite block was successfully prepared, and no other crystal phases were found. The triphasic blocks could maintain their shape after setting. The addition of brushite and monetite powders disrupted the interlocked structure of the set gypsum crystal, resulting in a decrease in mechanical strength. Furthermore, the variation in brushite and monetite powders did not affect the mechanical properties of the triphasic blocks.
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.