ArticleBMC oral health2026
A study on the osteogenic effect of CGF membrane combined with bone graft in rabbit calvarial defects.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the physicochemical properties, biocompatibility, barrier function, and bone regeneration performance of CGF membrane, heated‑compressed CGF membrane, and Bio‑Gide (BG) collagen membrane combined with bone graft in rabbit critical‑sized calvarial defects.
methodsIn vitro assessments included SEM, non‑enzymatic degradation, CCK‑8 assay, and Transwell migration assay using human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs). In vivo, 6‑mm critical‑sized calvarial defects were created in rabbits and assigned to five groups: blank control, bone graft (BO) alone, BO + CGF membrane, BO + heated‑compressed CGF membrane, and BO + BG membrane. Bone regeneration was evaluated by micro‑CT (BMD, Tb.N) and histology at 4th and 12th weeks. A linear mixed model was used to account for multiple defects per animal.
resultsAll three membranes showed favorable microstructure and biocompatibility, and significantly inhibited HGF migration. In vivo, BMD and Tb.N were significantly higher in the three membrane‑covered groups than in the blank and BO‑alone groups (P < 0.01), with no significant differences among membrane groups. Heated-compression did not improve functional performance.
conclusionWhen used with bone graft, CGF membrane yields similar bone regenerative structural outcomes to BG membrane in non‑load‑bearing calvarial defects. Direct osteogenic molecular markers (ALP, osteocalcin) were not analyzed. Conventional CGF membrane is a reliable autologous barrier candidate for small‑to‑medium defects (≤ 6 mm).
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.