ArticleScientific reports2026
Impact of two different hesperidin forms loaded on nanoscale modified borate bioglass scaffolds on rat critical-sized calvarial defects.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone defects remain a major clinical challenge because of their limited self-healing capacity. This study aimed primarily to evaluate whether nanoscale modified borate bioglass scaffolds (MBBGS) could enhance the delivery of hesperidin (HPN), an antioxidant flavonoid, to bone defects, and secondarily to compare the osteogenic effects of micro- and nano-sized HPN (mHPN and nHPN) on bone regeneration. Scaffolds were fabricated and fully characterized. Fifty-six healthy male albino rats were anesthetized, and bilateral critical-sized calvarial defects were created. The rats were divided into four groups: control (empty defects), MBBGS alone, MBBGS loaded with mHPN, and MBBGS loaded with nHPN. The animals were euthanized at the end of the 2nd and 6th weeks postoperatively. The skulls were harvested and processed for radiological, histological, and immunohistochemical analyses. Radiographic evaluation showed progressive defect closure over time, with the greatest reduction in defect size observed in the MBBGS + nHPN group compared to the other groups. Histologically, the MBBGS + nHPN group revealed the greatest osteogenic impact and significantly increased osteopontin (OPN) immunoreactivity, followed by MBBGS + mHPN and MBBGS groups, while the control group exhibited minimal bone healing and weak OPN reactivity. In conclusion, the newly fabricated MBBGS effectively promoted calvarial bone regeneration, which was further enhanced by loading with nHPN.
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.