ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
The Regenerative Effect of Various Barrier Membranes With and Without Bone Grafting in Critical Size Defects in Rabbit Calvaria.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2026. 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.
- Guided Alveolar Ridge Preservation (G-ARP) with a Subperiosteal Cortical Lamina: A Retrospective Observational Case Series.Dentistry journal · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial aims to investigate the regenerative effects of various thicknesses and types of barrier materials with and without bone grafting in a rabbit calvaria model. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred male rabbits were partitioned into two groups: one without bone graft (NB) and one with bone grafting (BG). The groups were further divided into five subgroups, n = 10 each: C (control); SC (0.3 mm single-layered collagen); DC (0.6 mm double-layered collagen); L1 (0.5 mm cortical collagenated bone barrier); and L2 (1.0 mm cortical collagenated bone barrier). In all experimental groups, each distinct type of barrier was applied following the creation of a 10 mm circular defect in the calvaria of each rabbit. After 24 weeks, the calvariae were examined by histologic and histomorphometric analyses.
resultsThe utilization of cortical bone barriers increased bone formation in all experimental groups. For Group NB, the histological score significantly differed among subgroups (p < 0.001). L1 and L2 subgroups had more favorable histological scores than the control groups (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the L2 subgroup had a higher histological score than the SC subgroup (p < 0.001). In Group BG, histological score significantly differed among subgroups (p < 0.001). DC, L1, and L2 subgroups had higher histological scores than the controls (p < 0.02), (p < 0.001), and (p < 0.001), respectively. The L2 subgroup had a higher histological score than the SC subgroup (p < 0.01). The BG group had significantly higher histological scores overall compared to the NB group based on barriers (p < 0.05).
conclusionsWithin the limits of this model, the 1.0 mm cortical lamina barrier demonstrated the most favorable regenerative performance, consistently achieving higher histologic scores and more advanced tissue maturation than thinner cortical lamina or collagen membranes. These findings indicate that barrier architecture, particularly thickness and mechanical stability, plays an important role in promoting predictable bone regeneration.
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.