Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41172497›Full record

SynthesisBrazilian dental journal2025

Bioactive glasses as bone substitutes for animal critical defects: A systematic review.

Luiza Bastos Nozari, Hiskell Francine Fernandes E Oliveira, Gabriela Dandaro Marinho, Joel Ferreira Santiago Junior, Márcia Martins Marques, Maria Cristina Zindel Deboni, Emanuela Prado Ferraz

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Luiza Bastos NozariDepartment of Prothesis, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Traumatology. School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2504-8751
Hiskell Francine Fernandes E OliveiraDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Periodontology, School of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2433-8167
Gabriela Dandaro MarinhoDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Periodontology, School of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0007-4980-9969
Joel Ferreira Santiago JuniorDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthesis, School of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-1735-2224
Márcia Martins MarquesDepartment of Prothesis, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Traumatology. School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2966-6039
Maria Cristina Zindel DeboniDepartment of Prothesis, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Traumatology. School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-9398-1252
Emanuela Prado FerrazDepartment of Prothesis, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Traumatology. School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-6833-4865

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biocompatible MaterialsBone RegenerationBone SubstitutesGlassAnimalsRabbitsRatsBiocompatible MaterialsBone Substitutes

Identifiers

PMID41172497
PMCPMC12551993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.