ArticleRegenerative therapy2025
Article in Regenerative therapy, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Collagen-based materials differ in absorption time, biodegradation patterns, and inflammatory cell infiltration. This study aimed to evaluate the biocompatibility and biodegradation of native, differently processed, and cross-linked porcine collagen membranes implanted in the subcutaneous tissue of rats, following ISO 10993-6:2016. Methods: Sixty Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into four groups: Group 1 (lyophilized 3 % porcine type I collagen membrane), Group 2 (lyophilized 3 % porcine type I collagen membrane, dehydrothermal [DHT]), Group 3 (1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether [BDDE] cross-linked, lyophilized 3 % porcine type I collagen), and Group 4 (BDDE cross-linked, lyophilized 3 % porcine type I collagen, DHT). The experimental periods were 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks, with three animals per group per period. After each period, specimens were extracted and analyzed for membrane structure, biodegradation, cell infiltration, angiogenesis, tissue integration, and foreign body reaction using histological staining and scoring according to ISO 10993-6:2016. Results: The cross-linked collagen membrane groups maintained their porous structure, with cell infiltration and blood vessel formation observed within this structure. Non-cross-linked collagen membranes (Group 1) appeared as lumps under the subcutaneous tissue and exhibited minimal or no response throughout the observation periods. Groups 2 and 4 biodegraded the fastest. Group 2 membranes were not detected in the subcutaneous tissue at 8 weeks, classified as a slight response. Cross-linked collagen membranes in all groups showed a slight response, whereas Group 4 exhibited a moderate response (11.0-16.9) only at 12 weeks. The tissue response to collagen membranes in all groups aligned with physiological inflammatory processes, scoring from minimal or no response (0.0-5.9) to slight response (6.0-10.9), confirming their biocompatibility. Conclusions: Cross-linking methods, temperature, and chemical reagents influence collagen membrane properties. Cross-linked collagen formed a porous structure, and high-temperature DHT cross-linking accelerated the biodegradation of the collagen membrane.
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.