ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2024
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preclinical evaluation of patient-specific 3D-printed PDLLA/SrHAp implants in a minipig segmental mandibular defect model.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- Exploring the pivotal role of hot melt extrusion technology in developing PLGA based novel drug delivery platforms for better therapeutic outcomes.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2026Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDespite being an important research topic in oral biomaterials, few studies have demonstrated the differences between poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycolide)/hydroxyapatite (PLGA/HA) and poly(d,l-lactic acid)/hydroxyapatite (PDLLA/HA). In this study, PLGA/HA and PDLLA/HA scaffolds were prepared using three-dimensional (3D) printing technology and implanted into radius defects in rabbits to assess their effects on bone regeneration.
methodsIn this study, 6 mm × 4 mm bone defects were generated in the bilateral radii of rabbits. 3D-printed PLGA/HA and PDLLA/HA scaffolds were implanted into the defects. X-ray imaging, micro-computed tomography, and hematoxylin-eosin staining were performed to observe the degradation of the materials, the presence of new bone, and bone remodeling in the bone defect area.
resultsThe PLGA/HA scaffolds displayed complete degradation at 20 weeks, whereas PDLLA/HA scaffolds exhibited incomplete degradation. Active osteoblasts were detected in both groups. The formation of new bone, bone marrow cavity reconstruction, and cortical bone remodeling were better in the PLGA/HA group than in the PDLLA/HA group.
conclusionsPLGA/HA scaffolds performed better than PDLLA/HA scaffolds in repairing bone defects, making the former scaffolds more suitable as bone substitutes at the same high molecular weight.
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.