ArticleHeliyon2025
An evaluation of osseous regeneration capability of novel autogenous tooth graft along with orthobiologics for long bone segmental defects.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extracted tooth, is predominantly considered a medical waste but tooth and bone evince similitude in biochemical composition, so tooth may be considered as bone graft material. We selected twenty-four adult rabbits with age and body weight ranges of 1-3 years and 2-4 kg respectively, regardless of sex and breed. These rabbits were allocated into four groups i.e., J, K, L, and M. Autogenous tooth graft was acquired from the individual's incisor. In group J (control), tooth graft alone was used at the mid shaft radius fractured site. For group K, tooth and bone marrow aspirate (BMA) were applied. In group L, tooth-platelet rich plasma (PRP) was administered while for group M, tooth-decellularized fish scale (DFS) was engrafted at the location. The research was conducted for 4 months and parameter evaluation was done on 0, 1st, 7th, 15th, 30th, 45th, 60th, 75th, 90th, 105th and 120th days. The therapeutic regimens were extensively appraised in terms of physiological vitals, hematology, serology, bone biomarkers, mechanical assessment, radiography and histomorphometric parameters. We noticed appropriate osteointegration of autologous tooth with the fractured site, good healing and bone remodeling in all groups with superior to lower trends in Tooth-BMA, Tooth-PRP, Tooth-DFS, and Tooth-solo groups respectively. Though usage of aforementioned regimens
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.