ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Evaluating the efficacy of eggshell-derived hydroxyapatite (EHA) and synthetic hydroxyapatite (SHA) in bone regeneration of maxillofacial defects-a randomized double-blind pilot comparative clinical-radiological study.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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
Background: Defects of the maxillofacial skeleton lead to functional, aesthetic, social, and behavioral problems, that make the person isolate from the mainstream of society. So, bone regeneration is needed for the overall health. Since long time various materials have been used for bone regeneration with limitations. Recently, Eggshell derived hydroxyapatite [EHA] has been explored as a graft substitute. Hence EHA is evaluated and compared with SHA (synthetic hydroxyapatite) for its efficacy to accelerate bone regeneration in maxillofacial cystic defects. Materials and methods: Total of 20 bony defects randomly allocated to SHA and EHA groups for grafting after removal of pathology (cyst and granuloma) having ≤ 2 cm in size. Signs and symptoms were evaluated postsurgically for 2 weeks. Bone regeneration was assessed by blinded observer for study duration and method of intervention postoperatively at1 Results: The study found no statistical significant difference among clinical signs and symptoms between the groups. Whereas EHA showed better bone regeneration by the end of 6th month and 1 year compared to SHA with statistically significant difference in bone density[EHA group (136.04 ± 15.56) and SHA group (115.58 ± 16.26)]. Parameters like internal portion of surgical site, surgical site outline showed consistent results with density. Conclusion: Both EHA and SHA graft materials are equally efficient in early bone regeneration. The EHA showed promising results and enhanced bone regeneration with osteoconductivity, which indicates the eggshell waste-bio mineral is worthwhile raw material for the production of HA and is Go Green procedure. EHA is economic, compared with SHA.
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.