ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Comparative Evaluation of Biocompatibility Data from the Subcutaneous and the Calvaria Implantation Model of a Novel Bone Substitute Block.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Methodological Approach to Assessing Biocompatibility: 3D Printing and Subcutaneous Implantation in Rats.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Composite Coating-driven Regulation ofIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
- A Beginner's Guide to the Annex E Scoring System of ISO 10993-6.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Review
- Poly-lactic Acid Dermal Filler Enriched With InCubeIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
- Biologic Functionalization of a Biphasic Bone Substitute With Enamel Matrix Derivative Modulates Early Foreign Body Reaction in a Subcutaneous Mouse Model.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
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
BACKGROUND/
aimThis study compares the biocompatibility of a novel hybrid bone substitute material based on biphasic granules in a type I collagen scaffold using both subcutaneous and calvarial implantation models, in accordance with DIN EN ISO 10993-6. Given the distinct biological environments, materials may exhibit different behaviors in connective MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study evaluated the biocompatibility and host tissue response of test materials in male Wistar rats through subcutaneous and calvaria implantation models, following DIN EN ISO 10993-6, assessing cellular responses, material degradation, and bone regeneration at 10-, 30-, and 60-days post-implantation.
resultsSubcutaneous implants elicited a stronger inflammatory reaction with higher counts of polymorphonuclear cells, lymphocytes, multinucleated giant cells, and plasma cells at day 10, alongside consistently elevated irritancy scores. In contrast, calvaria implants showed increased neovascularization, reflecting bone-specific regenerative processes. Although capsule formation and cellular infiltration were similar between models, material degradation and phagocytosis were significantly greater subcutaneously at day 60.
conclusionThese results highlight the critical impact of implantation site on immune activation, vascularization, and biomaterial resorption, underlining the importance of model selection in preclinical biomaterial assessment.
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.