ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2025
Evaluation of a Novel Bioresorbable Device for Guided Bone Regeneration: An In Vitro CBCT Study on Pig Jaws.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Collagen Membrane Fixation Technique Affects Its Space Maintenance Capacity After Flap Closure: An Ex Vivo Analysis.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To compare the volume stability of guided bone regeneration (GBR) on peri-implant bone dehiscence defects during flap closure using a novel bioresorbable device with a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) or an L-shaped DBBM with 10% collagen (DBBM-C). Methods: A bioresorbable device was designed and printed using a medical-grade polyglycolide-colactide copolymer (PGLA). Twenty peri-implant box-shaped bone defects were created in 10 pig mandibles. GBR procedures were performed with: device (device + DBBM + collagen membrane) or L-shape (L-shaped DBBM-C + collagen membrane + fixation pins). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were carried out prior and after wound closure. The horizontal thickness of the augmentation at the buccal implant shoulder, procedure duration, and difficulty of each GBR procedure were recorded. Results: No statistically significant differences for the horizontal thickness of the augmentation at the buccal implant shoulder were obtained ( Conclusion: GBR with the device in combination with DBBM and a collagen membrane led to a similar amount of horizontal thickness of the augmentation as an L-shaped DBBM-C with a collagen membrane and fixation pins. The procedure with the device was significantly faster and easier for the clinician.
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.