Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40278254›Full record

ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025

Bone Regeneration in Defects Created on Rat Calvaria Grafted with Porcine Xenograft and Synthetic Hydroxyapatite Reinforced with Titanium Particles-A Microscopic and Histological Study.

Antonia Samia Khaddour, Emma Cristina Drăghici, Mihaela Ionescu, Cristina Elena Andrei, Răzvan Eugen Ghiţă, Răzvan Mercuţ, Oana Gîngu, Gabriela Sima, Lavinia Toma Tumbar, Sanda Mihaela Popescu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Antonia Samia KhaddourDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Emma Cristina DrăghiciDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Mihaela IonescuDepartment of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Cristina Elena AndreiDepartment of Histology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Răzvan Eugen GhiţăDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Răzvan MercuţDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Oana GînguDepartment of Automotive, Transports and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Mechanics, University of Craiova, 200585 Craiova, Romania.
Gabriela SimaDepartment of Engineering and Management of Technological Systems, Faculty of Mechanics, University of Craiova, 200512 Craiova, Romania.
Lavinia Toma TumbarDepartment of Academic Ethics and Legislation, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.
Sanda Mihaela PopescuDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania.ORCID 0000-0003-3011-6322

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Alveolar bone regeneration in dentistry has become important with the evolution of implantology. Biomaterials used for bone grafting are increasingly used to provide resistant bone support that is favorable for the insertion of dental implants. The aim of the study was to analyze the degree of biocompatibility and bone neoformation of two biomaterials compared to natural healing. (2) Methods: Bone defects of 3 mm diameter were created in the calvaria of 15 adult male Wistar rats. Three groups were created: group A, in which natural healing was achieved; group B, in which porcine xenograft was added; and group C, in which experimental synthetic bone based on hydroxyapatite reinforced with titanium particles was added. Samples were collected at 2 and 4 months postoperatively and analyzed microscopically and histologically. (3) Results: Data were obtained on the healing pattern of the created cavities, as well as the degree of their filling with newly formed bone tissue. Following the results obtained from the stereomicroscope analysis and histological analysis, statistically significant differences were observed between the two biomaterials regarding the time required for the transformation process of the graft particles into bone. Thus, the porcine xenograft was incorporated more quickly into the native bone, while the synthetic bone required a longer period of time. (4) Conclusions: The bone graft materials used acted as scaffolds for the newly formed bone, but each biomaterial required a different amount of time for the particles to be incorporated into the native bone.

Indexed as

biomaterialsbone graft materialsbone regenerationhistological analysismicroscopic analysisrat calvariasynthetic biomaterialxenograft

Identifiers

PMID40278254
PMCPMC12028239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.