ArticleJournal of periodontal & implant science2024
Comparative analysis of the
Article in Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative In Vitro Evaluation and Osteogenic Mechanisms of Representative Bone Graft Substitutes: Bioactive Glass, Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate, and Deproteinized Bovine Bone.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Bone Fusion in the Cervical Spine: Where Are We Now?Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Bone Morphogenetic Protein (BMP) 9 Outperforms BMP2 in Osteogenesis and Osseointegration: In Vitro and In Vivo.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2026Article
- Longitudinal comparative study on osteogenic capacity using two collagenated xenografts in artificial bone defects in beagles.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bone Regeneration: A Review of Current Treatment Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Bone grafts and synthetic substitutes in dental applications: a comprehensive review of molecular mechanisms, materials evolution, and clinical perspective.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- CGF with Bio-Oss collagen as grafting materials for simultaneous implant placement after osteotome sinus floor elevation: a prospective study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Osteoproductivity of Injectable Bone Grafts with and without Ostrich Eggshell Membrane Protein in Rabbit Femur.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- A Flexible Membrane May Improve Bone Regeneration by Increasing Hydrophilicity and Conformability in Lateral Bone Augmentation.Biomaterials research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDeproteinized bovine bone or synthetic hydroxyapatite are 2 prevalent bone grafting materials used in the clinical treatment of peri-implant bone defects. However, the differences in bone formation among these materials remain unclear. This study evaluated osteogenesis kinetics in peri-implant defects using 2 types of deproteinized bovine bone (Bio-Oss
methodsA beagle model with a mandibular defect was created by extracting the bilateral mandibular third and fourth premolars. Simultaneously, an implant was inserted into the defect, and the space between the implant and the surrounding bone walls was filled with Bio-Oss, Bio-Oss/Collagen, Apaceram-AX, Refit, or autologous bone. Micro-computed tomography and histological analyses were conducted at 3 and 6 months postoperatively (Refit and autologous bone were not included at the 6-month time point due to their rapid absorption).
resultsAll materials demonstrated excellent biocompatibility and osteoconductivity. At 3 months, Bio-Oss and Apaceram-AX exhibited significantly greater volumes of formation than the other materials, with Bio-Oss having a marginally higher amount. However, this outcome was reversed at 6 months, with no significant difference between the 2 materials at either time point. Apaceram-AX displayed notably slower bioresorption and the largest quantity of residual material at both time points. In contrast, Refit had significantly greater bioresorption, with complete resorption and rapid maturation involving cortical bone formation at the crest at 3 months, Refit demonstrated the highest mineralized tissue and osteoid occupancy after 3 months, albeit without statistical significance.
conclusionsOverall, the materials demonstrated varying post-implantation behaviors
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.