ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
Evaluation of bone regeneration in rat calvaria using combination of enamel matrix derivate and bone graft substitute: a histological, histometric and immunohistochemical study.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optical Coherence Tomography, Stereomicroscopic, and Histological Aspects of Bone Regeneration on Rat Calvaria in the Presence of Bovine Xenograft or Titanium-Reinforced Hydroxyapatite.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Multiscale Design of Dental Restorative Materials: Mechanistic Foundations, Technological Innovations, and Clinical Translation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the bone repair process of standardized calvaria defects in rats treated with different bone substitute materials.
methodsCritical size bone defects with 7 mm diameter were created in the right parietal bone of forty-eight rats using a trephine burr. The animals were randomly allocated to four different experimental groups according to the materials used to fill the defect, as follow: (1) Autogenous group: defects were filled with autogenous bone; (2) Bio-Oss group: defects were filled with demineralized bovine bone mineral; (3) EMD group: defects were filled with Emdogain
resultsHistometric analysis demonstrated for the 30-day period that all groups presented areas of bone neoformation, with the EMD + Bone group showing increased percentage of bone neoformation. For the 60-day period, there was a trend towards greater bone neoformation compared to the 30-day period, with a statistically significant difference between the EMD + Bone vs. Bio-Oss groups (p = 0.036). The percentage of new bone formation was significantly higher in the autogenous group compared to all the others. Moderate immunostaining of osteocalcin was observed in all groups at 30 days, which increased significantly in the 60-day period.
conclusionThis study demonstrated suitable biological properties in the association of Emdogain CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40323334What 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.