ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2026
Comparative efficacy of chitosan and calcium carbonate-based scaffolds for bone regeneration in preclinical in vivo models: a systematic review.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the efficacy of chitosan and calcium carbonate (CaCO₃)-based scaffolds in promoting bone regeneration in preclinical in vivo models, focusing on bone volume, mineral density, histological outcomes, and biomechanical properties.
methodsThis systematic review adheres to PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for studies published from March 2015 to March 2025 using keywords such as "chitosan," "calcium carbonate," "bone regeneration," and "scaffolds." Eligible studies involved preclinical in vivo research on bone defect repair with chitosan or calcium carbonate scaffolds. Studies were included if they compared these scaffolds with other bone regeneration materials or no intervention. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the SYRCLE Risk of Bias tool.
resultsThirty preclinical in vivo studies involving 850 animals were included. Chitosan scaffolds showed new bone formation ranging from 40% to 85%, while calcium carbonate scaffolds showed regeneration rates between 50% and 70%. Significant improvements in bone mineral density (BMD), bone volume-to-total volume ratio (BV/TV), and trabecular thickness were observed in scaffold-treated groups. Histological findings indicated increased osteoblast activity, mineralization, and vascularization, especially in chitosan combined with other materials. No significant biomechanical differences were found between the scaffolds, but composite materials showed improved mechanical properties (p < 0.05).
conclusionsBoth chitosan and calcium carbonate-based scaffolds show promising potential in preclinical models, with chitosan reporting 40-85% new bone formation (≈19 studies) and CaCO₃ reporting 50-70% (≈11 studies). However, heterogeneity in study design and reporting quality warrants cautious interpretation. This variability also underscores the need for standardized testing and further research to isolate the independent effects of scaffold composition.
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.