ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2024
Comparing the effects of Bone
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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.
- Development and evaluation of a synthetic Cu-Zn-reinforced biphasic calcium phosphate scaffold for periodontal bone repair.Narra J · 2026Article
- Optical Coherence Tomography, Stereomicroscopic, and Histological Aspects of Bone Regeneration on Rat Calvaria in the Presence of Bovine Xenograft or Titanium-Reinforced Hydroxyapatite.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Bone Regeneration in Defects Created on Rat Calvaria Grafted with Porcine Xenograft and Synthetic Hydroxyapatite Reinforced with Titanium Particles-A Microscopic and Histological Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Tomographic and Electron Microscopy Description of Two Bone-Substitute Xenografts for the Preservation of Dental Alveoli.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Comparing the effects of BoneClinical and experimental dental 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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe bone regeneration therapy is often used in patients with inadequate bone support for implants, particularly following tooth extractions. Xenografts derived from animal tissues are effective bone reconstructive options that resist resorption and pose a low risk of transmitting disease. Therefore, these implants may be a good option for enhancing and stabilizing maxillary sinuses. The purpose of this study was to compare two xenografts, Bone METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study involved seven male New Zealand white rabbits. In the surgical procedure, 21 spots were created on both sides of the midline calvarium by creating three 8-millimeter defects. A control group was used, as well as two treatment groups utilizing Bone
resultsWith the application of Bone
conclusionInterOss® bone powder is the best option for maxillofacial surgery and bone reconstruction. This is due to more bone formation, less remaining material, and a lower inflammation level. Compared to the control group, Bone
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.