ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparative Evaluation of Bovine- and Porcine-Deproteinized Grafts for Guided Bone Regeneration: An In Vivo Study.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Pilot Case Series of Lateral Ridge Augmentation Using a Collagenated Porcine-Derived Xenograft: Clinical, Histological, and Remodeling Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Sinus Lift with Collagenated Porcine Xenograft in Severely Atrophic Posterior Maxillae: Case Series with Histologic Correlation and Long-Term Outcomes.Dentistry journal · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures have been indicated to enhance bone response, reliably regenerate lost tissue, and create an anatomically pleasing ridge contour for biomechanically favorable and prosthetically driven implant placement. The aim of the current study was to evaluate and compare the bone regenerative performance of deproteinized bovine bone (DBB) and deproteinized porcine bone (DPB) grafts in a beagle mandibular model for the purposes of GBR. Four bilateral defects of 10 mm × 10 mm were induced through the mandibular thickness in each of the 10 adult beagle dogs being studied. Two of the defects were filled with DPB, while the other two were filled with DBB, after which they were covered with collagen-based membranes to allow compartmentalized healing. Animals were euthanized after 6, 12, 24, or 48 weeks postoperatively. Bone regenerative capacity was evaluated by qualitative histological and quantitative microtomographic analyses. Microcomputed tomography data of the bone (%), graft (%), and space (%) were compared using a mixed model analysis. Qualitatively, no histomorphological differences in healing were observed between the DBB and DPB grafts at any time point. By 48 weeks, the xenografts (DBB and DPB) were observed to have osseointegrated with regenerating spongy bone and a close resemblance to native bone morphology. Quantitatively, a higher amount of bone (%) and a corresponding reduction in empty space (space (%)) were observed in defects treated by DBB and DPB grafts over time. However, no statistically significant differences in bone (%)were observed between DBB (71.04 ± 8.41 at 48 weeks) and DPB grafts (68.38 ± 10.30 at 48 weeks) (
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.