SynthesisBrazilian dental journal2025
Bioactive glasses as bone substitutes for animal critical defects: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Brazilian dental journal, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bioactive glasses (BGs) have garnered attention for their ability to bond with native bone tissue and exhibit osteoconductive properties. Despite studies investigating BGs for bone repair, results have been inconsistent, and an ideal formulation for regenerating critical defects has not been established. This systematic review aimed to analyze evidence regarding BG-based biomaterials for bone regeneration in animals with critical defects. The review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022325250). A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the SYRCLE RoB Tool for Animal Studies. Nine of the 1,467 identified studies were included. Most studies have indicated that bone defects created in rats and rabbits, and treated with BG-based biomaterials, show improved bone formation compared to untreated defects. Key parameters included bone volume, percentage of bone volume, bone mineral density, trabecular number, thickness, and separation. Although most studies indicate that BG-based biomaterials enhance bone formation in critical-sized defects compared to empty controls, study heterogeneity prevents the drawing of definitive conclusions. This review emphasizes the importance of standardized assessment methods to produce reliable research reports that provide robust evidence, ensuring accurate efficacy assessments and ultimately leading to more effective clinical interventions.
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.