ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Evaluation of Two Alloplastic Biomaterials in a Critical-Size Rat Calvarial Defect Model.
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 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.
- Comparative In Vitro Evaluation and Osteogenic Mechanisms of Representative Bone Graft Substitutes: Bioactive Glass, Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate, and Deproteinized Bovine Bone.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Physicochemical, microstructural, and histological evaluation of hexagonal boron nitride-reinforced mineral trioxide aggregate in experimental rat tibial bone defects.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimto evaluate the bone regeneration capacity of two alloplastic biomaterials in a critical-size rat calvarial defect model.
methodsA total of 80 rats were randomized into 8 groups of 10 animals each. An Ø8 mm, critical-size calvarial defect was created, and the following treatments were randomly allocated: sham surgery, deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) + collagen membrane (CM), poly-(lactic-co-glycolic-acid) (PLGA)-coated pure phase β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), or PLGA-coated 60% hydroxyapatite (HA):40%β-TCP. Animals were allowed to heal for 2 and 6 weeks. Microcomputed tomography (μCT) was used to evaluate mineralized tissue and biomaterial displacement. Histological samples were used to evaluate new bone formation.
resultsμCT analysis showed no significant differences among groups for total volume of mineralized tissue or residual biomaterials. DBBM + CM showed significantly increased horizontal biomaterial displacement at 2 weeks but not at 6 weeks. Histological analysis showed that sham surgery had a significantly higher percentage of bone area fraction than the DBBM + CM and PLGA + β-TCP at 2 weeks, but not at 6 weeks. Residual biomaterial area fraction showed no significant differences among experimental groups at any healing time.
conclusionsThe alloplastic biomaterials showed suitable construct integrity and retention in the defect. All biomaterials were associated with limited new bone formation comparable to the sham surgery control.
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.