ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Efficacy of Cross-Linked Collagen Membranes for Bone Regeneration: In Vitro and Clinical Studies.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Tenting screw (tent pole) technique in vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
- Natural Polymers in Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR).Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Augmentation Stability of L-Shaped Collagenated Soft Block Bone with Physically Crosslinked and Non-Crosslinked Collagen Membranes: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Collagen Type I as a Biological Barrier Interface in Biomimetic Microfluidic Devices: Properties, Applications, and Challenges.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of cross-linked collagen membranes. Two types of collagen membranes were compared: a non-cross-linked collagen membrane (group A) and a cross-linked (group B) collagen membrane. In the in vitro study, the degradation rate in the presence of collagenase, the tear strength of the membranes, and the cytotoxicity of the cross-linked collagen membrane were evaluated. A total of 57 participants with cystic defects were randomized to undergo guided bone regeneration (GBR) using either membrane. Graft volume and new bone formation were measured by cone-beam computed tomography after 6 months of follow-up. In vitro findings revealed that the cross-linked collagen membrane retained more than 20% of its relative weight after 12 h. Meanwhile, the non-cross-linked collagen membrane exhibited complete degradation after 6 h. Clinically, no significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of graft resorption, new bone formation, and overall bone regeneration. These results indicate that cross-linking has comparable biocompatibility and enhances physical properties, including tear strength and resistance to degradation. However, clinical outcomes related to bone regeneration were not significantly different between cross-linked and non-cross-linked collagen membranes. Further research is warranted to determine the benefits of cross-linked collagen membranes in GBR procedures.
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.