Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37857516›Full record

ArticleJournal of periodontal & implant science2024

Comparative analysis of the

Jingyang Kang, Masaki Shibasaki, Masahiko Terauchi, Narumi Oshibe, Katsuya Hyodo, Eriko Marukawa

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Bone Fusion in the Cervical Spine: Where Are We Now?Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jingyang KangDepartment of Regenerative and Reconstructive Dentistry, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5792-5918
Masaki ShibasakiDepartment of Regenerative and Reconstructive Dentistry, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan. shibirm@tmd.ac.jp.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8340-9594
Masahiko TerauchiDepartment of Maxillofacial Surgery, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7060-2715
Narumi OshibeDepartment of Maxillofacial Surgery, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8566-402X
Katsuya HyodoDepartment of Maxillofacial Surgery, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6366-6254
Eriko MarukawaDepartment of Regenerative and Reconstructive Dentistry, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7319-8159
Tokyo Medical and Dental University · JP

Funding

HOYA Technosurgical Co
6 · The paper itself

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

Alveolar bone graftingAnimal experimentationBiocompatible materialsBone regenerationDental implantsHydroxyapatite

Identifiers

PMID37857516
PMCPMC11065534
OpenAlexW4381618521

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.