ArticleCureus2025
Effect of Isolating the Periosteum With a Resorbable Barrier Membrane on Neoangiogenesis in Guided Bone Regeneration: An Experimental Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Descriptive Histological and Histomorphometrical Comparison of Four Xenogeneic and Synthetic Bone Blocks for Mandibular Onlay Augmentation in Rabbits.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Timing of alveolar bone surgery as a predictor of guided bone regeneration success: results of a retrospective cohort study.Journal of medicine and life · 2026Article
- In Vitro Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Resorbable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction In guided bone regeneration, the use of bone substitutes protected by resorbable barrier membranes is suggested for the treatment of bone defects. Sprouting of vessels from surrounding local bone and periosteum into such regenerated areas is an important factor for osteogenesis. However, isolating the grafted area from the overlying periosteum with a barrier membrane may affect the revascularization of the site, thus compromising new bone formation. Aim The aim of this experimental study was to perform a comparative evaluation of neoangiogenesis in bone defects filled with a bone graft and covered with a resorbable barrier membrane or a collagen fleece. Method Eighteen 2.5-3.5 kg weighing New Zealand white rabbits were used. Two circular bicortical bone defects (8 mm in diameter) were created in the calvaria of the animals and subsequently filled with a deproteinized bovine bone mineral ([DBBM]; Bio-Oss®, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland). One grafted defect was covered with a resorbable collagen membrane (Bio-Guide®, Geistlich Pharma AG) (group A), while the other site was covered by a collagen fleece (Jason® collagen fleece, Botiss Biomaterials GmbH, Zossen, Germany) (group B). The rabbits were divided into three study groups (7, 14, and 28 days), each containing six animals. Specimens were taken, and histological and immunohistological analyses were carried out concerning the number of newly formed vessels. Results All specimens showed uneventful bone formation at 28 days. There was a statistically significant difference in the number of blood vessels for the collagen fleece group at all time periods (7, 14, and 28 days). Conclusions The results of this study indicate that covering a bone graft with a quickly resorbable biomaterial (collagen fleece) allows for a greater degree of neoangiogenesis compared to a resorbable collagen barrier 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.