ArticleScientific reports2025
Longitudinal comparative study on osteogenic capacity using two collagenated xenografts in artificial bone defects in beagles.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of crosslinked and non-crosslinked collagenated xenografts for vertical bone augmentation in rabbit calvaria.Scientific reports · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the osteogenic capacity of two types of collagenated xenogenic bone grafts (OCS-B Collagen®, NIBEC, Jincheon, Korea and Bio-Oss® Collagen, Geistlich, Wolhusen, Switzerland) in artificial bone defects in beagle dogs. The bilateral mandibular premolars of 13 male beagles were extracted, followed by the creation of standardized bony defects after 4 weeks. The defects were grafted with or without the two bone grafts and covered by a collagen membrane. Dental implants were placed 24 weeks post grafting. Bone regeneration and osseointegration were evaluated using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), as well as histological and histomorphometric analyses, while implant stability was measured using resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Micro-CT revealed that both grafts significantly increased bone mineral density (BMD), bone volume (BV), total volume (TV), and BV/TV at 8 and 16 weeks. Twenty-four weeks after implant placement, comparable BMD, BV/TV, and bone-to-implant contact values indicated effective osseointegration. Histological analysis revealed new bone formation and integration between grafts. Histomorphometric analysis demonstrated the preservation of bone height and angle. RFA indicated good implant stability in both groups. The two collagenated xenogenic bone grafts exhibited similar osteogenic potential and osseointegration in an artificial bone defect and implant model. Clinically, both grafting materials may provide comparable outcomes in bone regeneration and implant stability.
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.