ArticleBMC oral health2026
The efficacy of blood-derived growth factor source compared to bone-derived growth factor source on bone regeneration in critical-sized rabbit calvarial bone 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe growth factor sources used in alveolar bone regeneration should be practical and at a level that provides maximum benefit and cost effectiveness. Autologous growth factors are easy and practical to obtain in clinical practice, but their effectiveness in bone regeneration should be assessed in vivo studies. The hypothesis of this study was that the contribution of bone derived growth factors source to bone formation is greater than that of blood-derived growth factor source.
methodsThirty male New Zealand rabbits were utilized in the experiment. Four defects of 8 mm were organized in the calvarium of each rabbit, and four treatment procedures were implemented: (1) empty defect, (2) autograft and xenograft (3) autograft+xenograft functionalized with growth factors released from autograft (4) autograft+ xenograft with injectable platelet rich fibrin (i-PRF). Rabbits were sacrificed at 4, 8 and 12 weeks of healing. Micro-computed tomography and histomorphometrically analyses were performed. The statistical difference was evaluated using two-way repeated measures analysis of variance. The significance level was set as p < 0.05.
resultsThe autograft+xenograft, autograft+xenograft functionalized with growth factors released from autograft and autograft+ xenograft with i-PRF provided comparable bone formation at 4 and 8 weeks. The autograft+xenograft with i-PRF revealed significantly higher new bone formation at 12 weeks compared to that of autograft+xenograft group. (p = 0.016) There was no difference in the new bone formation between autograft+xenograft with i-PRF and autograft+xenograft functionalized with growth factors groups. (p = 0.75) The residual graft remained comparable among treatment groups at all time points. (p = 0.05)
conclusionsThe composite graft contains growth factors obtained from i-PRF showed better new bone formation. Both blood and bone-derived growth factor sources can be utilized to functionalize the osteoconductive graft materials.
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.