ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2024
Evaluation of Porcine Collagen Membranes Used with Guided Bone Regeneration for Critical Defects: A Histological, Histomorphometric, Immunohistochemical, and Inflammatory Profile Analysis.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment of femoral defects in rats with collagen and elastin polymers combined with hydroxyapatite and bone morphogenetic protein.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Biomaterials for Guided Tissue Regeneration and Guided Bone Regeneration: A Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Functionalization of collagen fiber with nano-islands of silver via atomic layer deposition to promote bone healing.Heliyon · 2025Article
- From Waste to Innovation: A Circular Economy Approach for Tissue Engineering by Transforming Human Bone Waste into Novel Collagen Membranes.Biomolecules · 2025Article
- In Vitro Degradation of Collagen-Based Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration After Zn-Ions or Doxycycline Functionalization.Polymers · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two porcine collagen membranes of different origin used for guided bone regeneration procedures. MATERIALS AND
methodsResorbable collagen membrane from porcine dermis (Bio-Gide, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) and resorbable collagen membrane from porcine pericardium (Jason, Institut Straumann AG, Peter Merian-Weg, Switzerland) were evaluated; histological, histometric, immunohistochemical, and inflammatory profile analyses were performed. The study was carried out on critical defects created in the calvaria of 72 rats ( STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess data distribution. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Bonferroni multiple comparison test were used to compare the differences across the mean values of the variables. Nonparametric tests, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon W, were used for the quantitative analysis of the inflammatory profile. A significance level of 5% (
resultsA total of 1,008 analyses were performed on 288 histological slides. It was noted that both types of collagen membranes used in this study were effective for the guided bone regeneration procedure, with a greater proportion and thickness of bone formation among recipients of the BG (735 points,
conclusionThe collagen membrane from porcine dermis demonstrated a more orderly and physiological repair process, while the porcine pericardial membrane presented a more accelerated repair process that did not remain constant over time.
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.