ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Challenges and limitations in developing of a new maxillary standardized rat alveolar bone defect model to study bone regenerative approaches in oral and maxillofacial surgery.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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.
- Dental pulp stem cells and hydroxyapatite: a promising combination for maxillary bone regeneration.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Pullulan-dextran composite beads as bone fillers: from material design and industrial production to clinical application in oral surgery.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Innovative biomaterials are increasingly being investigated for guided bone regeneration (GBR) in oral and maxillofacial surgery. However, the development of relevant preclinical models still need to be consiedered. This study aimed to propose a standardized and reproducible maxillary bone defect model in rats that could be relevant to evaluate new materials for GBR. Three defect sizes in rat maxillary of 2.8, 3.3, and 4.5 mm in diameter were compared. Bone formation was followed until 12 weeks post-surgery using longitudinal micro-computed tomography and histological analysis. The defect was subsequently filled by an osteoconductive bone substitute (GLYCOBONE), then covered either by a new natural polysaccharide membrane supplemented with hydroxyapatite, or by a commercial collagen membrane (BIO-GIDE). Results showed little spontaneous tissue regeneration for empty defects (bone volume fractions (BVF) below 40% after 12 weeks). The smallest size defect (2.8 mm) was the most reproducible and was thus selected for testing GBR membranes. Defects filled with GLYCOBONE and covered with membranes displayed for both materials accelerated and substantial bone regeneration (with BVF that reached 80% after 12 weeks). Histological sections showed immature bone formation for the empty defects, whereas the defects filled with the GBR membranes highlighted a lamellar structured bone. The polysaccharide membrane was as effective as the commercial collagen membrane to guide bone tissue regeneration. This study provides a step-by-step protocol of a new standardized rat maxillary bone defect model. In line with ethical and financial considerations, this rodent model should be considered as a preliminary level before performing larger animal experiments.
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.