ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2025
Biomechanical and cellular assessment of novel partially demineralized allogeneic bone plates: an ex-vivo and in-vitro study.
Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare commercial allogeneic cortical bone plates (cCP) with innovative, differently demineralized CP (dCP) in biomechanics and human osteoblast (HOB) viability ex-vivo and in-vitro.
methodsBreaking strength (BS; in N) and flexibility (F; in mm) of cCP and dCP were assessed and compared using four groups ((1) non-hydrated, (2) hydrated for 10, (3) 30, and (4) 60 min in saline), respectively. Cell viability of HOB was evaluated by resazurin reduction on non-hydrated cCP and dCP after 3, 7, and 10 days. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) visualized CP breaking edges, internal structures, HOB cell morphology, and growth patterns.
resultsBS of hydrated dCP (d10: 15.45 ± 7.01 N, d30: 19.40 ± 3.78 N, d60: 20.31 ± 4.90 N) was significantly lower than that of non-hydrated dCP (d0: 74.70 ± 29.48 N) and native and hydrated cCP (c0: 75.00 ± 19.27 N, c10: 83.73 ± 10.92 N, c30: 83.80 ± 22.63 N, c60: 75.58 ± 14.25 N, p < 0.001 each). Next, dCP groups (d0: 2.64 ± 0.78 mm, d10: 2.14 ± 1.15 mm, d30: 2.76 ± 3.78 mm, d60: 2.86 ± 0.89 mm) exhibited significantly higher F than cCP groups (c0: 0.49 ± 0.14 mm, c10: 0.66 ± 0.10 mm, c30: 0.67 ± 0.16 mm, c60: 0.59 ± 0.12 mm, p < 0.05 each). No significant differences in F were observed among the different dCP groups. HOB cell viability was significantly increased on cCP compared to dCP after 7 (97.64 ± 2.11% vs. 76.88 ± 4.82%) and 10 days (96.14 ± 4.13% vs. 76.45 ± 4.64%; p < 0.001 each). SEM revealed well-defined breaking edges in cCP, whereas dCP displayed tear-off edges with shearing extensions. SEM showed disordered growth patterns and a physiological HOB cell morphology on dCP, contrasting with a parallel growth of fibroblast-like-looking HOB on cCP.
conclusionsCompared to cCP, dCP showed increased flexibility but lower breaking strength and reduced HOB vitality. The increased flexibility and a decrease in breaking strength are likely due to differences in elasticity between dCP and cCP. The use of dCP may improve clinical handling efficiency.
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.