ArticleBMC oral health2025
The efficacy of a novel porcine-derived collagen membrane on guided bone regeneration: a comparative study in canine model.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- In Vitro Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Resorbable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Effects of Two Dental Implant Micromotor Systems for Dental Implant Placement on Implant Stability and Removal Torque: An Animal Experiment.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the performance of the novel Striate + collagen membrane in a canine model of guided bone and tissue regeneration (GBR) with dental implant placement.
methodsEighteen mature beagle dogs were used in this split-mouth study. After having their premolar teeth extracted, GBR with immediate implant placement was performed on all study subjects. STUDY SUBJECTS: The study treatments were: control group (implant + no membrane); BG-group (implant + Bio-Gide membrane); and SG-group (implant + Striate + membrane). Six dogs were sacrificed at 4-, 8- and, 12-weeks post-treatment for radiographic (µCT) assessment, histological examination and histomorphometric analysis.
resultsµCT assessment showed that all groups exhibited increased bone formation from 4-weeks to 12-weeks post-treatment. There was no statistically significant difference in mean BV/TV between all 3 groups at weeks 4 and 8. At week 12, BV/TV was significantly higher in SG and BG-groups compared to control group. Assessment of bone microarchitectural parameters showed that animals in SG-group exhibited significantly higher Tb.N, O.Wi and lower Tb.Sp, suggesting more favorable mature bone structure. A significant increase in the number of osteoblasts on bone surface was also seen in SG-group. Histological assessment showed that SG-group displayed early signs of bone-to-implant contact at 8 weeks. While control sites showed early ingrowth of epithelium and connective tissue into the defects, infiltration of inflammatory cells, incomplete bone formation and limited bone to implant contact, use of a barrier membrane resulted in significant bone infill, mature bone formation with good bone to implant contact. and limited soft tissue invasion.
conclusionThis study demonstrated superiority of Striate + collagen membrane to promote good bone formation and prevent unwanted epithelial infiltration in a canine mode of GBR.
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.