ArticleActa cirurgica brasileira2025
A new eggshell-derived calcium phosphate bioceramic for tissue engineering: cytotoxicity and histomorphometric study.
Article in Acta cirurgica brasileira, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate cytotoxicity and tissue repair of a new chicken eggshell-derived bioceramic (hydroxyapatite/dicalcium phosphate anhydrous-HA/DCPA).
methodsCytotoxicity was evaluated in fibroblasts (L cell, L-929) by MTT test. Tissue repair of HA/DCPA was compared to HA/β-TCP bioceramic (Maxresorb-MXR). Two critical-sized bone defects (CSDs) were drilled in the calvarial of 24 Wistar rats and filled with one of the biomaterials. The animals were euthanized after 30, 60, and 90 days, and bone specimens were examined by histomorphometric analyses, scanning electron microscopy, and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. The percentages of newly formed bone, connective tissue, remaining biomaterial, and total tissue repair area were compared between groups using Student's t-test and analysis of variance (p ≤ 0.05).
resultsHA/DCPA did not exhibit any cytotoxicity. CSDs contained newly formed bone from the defect margins and from ossification centers interspersed throughout the biomaterials. At 30 days, HA/DCPA group had a significantly larger total tissue repair area than MXR group (p = 0.047). No differences were observed between groups regarding variables studied (p > 0.05).
conclusionHA/DCPA is non-cytotoxic. This cement promoted new bone formation and tissue filling of the entire defect area with degree of biomaterial degradation similar to HA/β-TCP, proving to be equally suitable and successful for bone regeneration.
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.