ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of bone regenerative potential of sticky bone combined with DPBM and APRF in a rabbit tibial model: an in vivo study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBone regeneration often relies on biomaterials to promote osteogenesis and modulate inflammation. Growth-factor-rich matrices and xenogeneic bone scaffolds have been reported to influence bone formation, vascularisation, and immune responses in vivo. This study therefore compared four biomaterials for their bone-regenerative potential in a rabbit non-critical tibial defect model: (1)Deproteinized porcine bone mineral (DPBM) (2)APRF (Advanced Platelet-Rich Fibrin) (3)Sticky Bone (STB, formed by combining DPBM and APRF) (4)Bovine collagen scaffolds (CS).
methodsThirty 15-week-old male New Zealand White rabbits were assigned to five groups: empty control (EC), DPBM, APRF, STB, and CS. Bilateral tibial defects (2.2 mm in diameter, 6 mm in depth) were filled with the respective materials and covered with porcine collagen membranes. Assessments at 2 and 6 weeks included micro-CT, histology, and immunohistochemistry (Runx2, ALP, CD31, TNF-α) to evaluate bone formation, vascularization, and inflammation.
resultsSTB exhibited consistently greater new bone fill and a stronger trabecular framework, alongside elevated Runx2 and ALP levels, indicating enhanced osteogenic capacity. Concurrently, higher CD31 expression and lower TNF-α suggested improved vascularization and attenuated inflammation. By contrast, collagen alone showed limited osteoinduction, whereas APRF alone provided mild early bone promotion. Taken together, these findings highlight STB's enhanced bone-regenerative capacity. However, no statistically significant differences in new bone formation were observed between STB and DPBM at all time points. Notably, at the 2-week mark, STB demonstrated a more pronounced anti-inflammatory effect than DPBM, reflected by significantly lower TNF-α levels.
conclusionsSTB demonstrated a pronounced capability for promoting bone formation and reducing inflammation, suggesting its potential as an effective biomaterial for clinical bone regeneration. Nonetheless, differences between STB and DPBM were not statistically significant at all time points, warranting further investigation into their comparative efficacy.
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.