ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Safety and preliminary efficacy of an electrically stimulated implant for mandibular bone regeneration: a pilot study in a large animal model.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A validated in vitro approach for low-frequency alternating-current stimulation of stem cells: From electrode characterization to biological responses.Protoplasma · 2026Article
- Parameter-resolved AC electrical stimulation links electrical system characteristics to early transcriptional responses in human stem cells.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- The Effect of Electrical Stimulation on the Cellular Response of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells Grown on Silicon Carbide-Coated Carbon Nanowall Scaffolds.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLarge mandibular defects present challenges for bone regeneration. This pilot study evaluates the safety and preliminary efficacy of direct electrical stimulation (ES) on tissue healing in a preclinical model, testing whether ES can enhance bone formation in critical-size mandibular defects. MATERIALS AND
methodsSix adult mini pigs with critical-size mandibular defects were used in a split-mouth design. The test group (n = 6) received 0.5 V AC/20 Hz ES for 3 × 45 min daily over three weeks, while the control group (n = 6) had no stimulation. Safety, early bone growth, and soft tissue effects were assessed at three locations: S1 (cancellous bone interface), S2 (middle of the defect), and S3 (pristine dense bone).
resultsThe ES group showed no adverse effects, confirming implant safety. The ES group exhibited significantly higher bone formation, particularly in S2 and S3. Enhanced vascularization and immune response, in terms of increased mast cells, were also observed in S2.
conclusionsThe implant device with ES is safe and promotes bone formation and vascularization in select sub-regions (S2 and S3). However, ES alone may not suffice for complete bone regeneration in critical-sized defects, and further optimization is needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates the potential of ES to improve bone healing in large mandibular defects, offering insights for clinical use in maxillofacial reconstruction.
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.