ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Long-term
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As carbonate apatite (CA) has a composition similar to bone, it is considered a potential bone substitute. This study investigated Methods: CA powder and commercial sugar with a grain size of 500-850 mm were mixed at an equal weight ratio. Compacted mixtures were placed in distilled water at 37°C for 40 min to allow the sugar to dissolve. Porous specimens were dried at room temperature overnight and then sintered at 700 °C for 1 h. Disc-shaped porous CA implants were inserted into femur bone defects in Wistar rats. Implanted CA was evaluated radiographically using micro-CT and histologically at 6 and 12 months, and ultrastructural observations were performed using TEM. Results: Bioresorption of porous CA increased over time, from 8.3% at 6 months to 13.9% at 12 months. At 12 months, new bone formation was also markedly increased inside porous CA. TEM analysis of the CA resorption process over the long term showed the involvement of mononuclear cells and MNGCs. These cells did not exhibit the typical ruffled border of osteoclasts. Conclusion: Resorption of porous CA continued for 1 year. New bone had formed up to the top of the porous CA by 12 months. In rat femur, MNGCs resorbed porous CA, and mononuclear cells, such as fibroblast-like cells, also contributed to CA resorption.
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.