ArticleBiomolecules2025
Biological Behavior of Bioactive Glasses SinGlass (45S5) and SinGlass High (F18) in the Repair of Critical Bone Defects.
Article in Biomolecules, 2025. 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.
- Nanoparticle-Enabled Modulation of the Bone Immune Microenvironment for Enhanced Regeneration.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Biological Interactions in Rat Tibial Osteogenesis: Micro-CT, Histomorphometric, and Histological Analyses of Bioglass, Fibrin Biopolymer, and Photobiomodulation.Biomolecules · 2026Article
- Membrane-free bone regeneration using biphasic calcium phosphate, heterologous fibrin biopolymer, and photobiomodulation: anThe journal of venomous animals and toxins including tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Innovative Smart Materials in Restorative Dentistry.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Biofunctional response of a synthetic ceramic of 99.9% tricalcium phosphate associated with a heterologous fibrin biopolymer and infrared photobiomodulation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the osteogenic potential of the bioactive glasses SinGlass (45S5) and SinGlass High (F18) in regenerating critical bone defects in rat calvaria. Both biomaterials promoted new bone formation around the particles, with the SinGlass High (F18) group exhibiting a higher rate of bone maturation. Histomorphological and birefringence analyses revealed better organization of the newly formed bone in the biomaterial-treated groups, and immunohistochemistry indicated the expression of osteogenic markers such as osteocalcin, immunostaining for bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP 2), and immunostaining for bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP 4). Microtomography computadorized (Micro-CT) revealed centripetal bone formation in both groups, with greater integration of the particles into the surrounding bone tissue. The superior performance of SinGlass High (F18) was attributed to its higher potassium and magnesium content, which enhance osteoconductivity. After 42 days, the SinGlass High (F18) group showed the highest percentage of new bone formation, in line with previous studies. Although our results are promising, the limited follow-up period and use of a single animal model highlight the need for further research to validate clinical applicability. SinGlass High (F18) appears to be a viable alternative to autografts in bone repair, with potential to improve tissue integration and accelerate recovery.
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.