ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
A novel growth factor bioavailability-enhanced allograft for use in craniomaxillofacial bone regeneration.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Regeneration of bone in challenging clinical environments requires use of a bone graft substitute that is both osteoregenerative and osteoconductive. Several bone grafts claim osteoregenerative potential, including allogeneic protein-enhanced (OsteoAMP and OsteoFactor), cell-binding peptide-enhanced (i-Factor), recombinant bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2) containing (INFUSE), or cellular allografts (ViviGen and Trinity). Recently, a novel growth factor bioavailability-enhanced allograft (Natural Matrix Protein®, NMP), was developed that similarly claims osteoregenerative potential. This article evaluates NMP and compares it to other bone grafts. Methods: The release of BMP-7 into PBS + Tween over 14 days from demineralized bone matrix (DBM) and NMP prepared from the same donors was measured by ELISA. The osteoinductive potential of NMP mixed with different amounts of inactive DBM was assessed in the athymic rat muscle pouch by microCT and histomorphometry. A second muscle pouch study evaluated the osteoinductive and osteogenic properties of OsteoAMP, OsteoFactor, i-Factor, ViviGen, Trinity, and INFUSE compared to NMP. The clinical potential of NMP to regenerate a severely atrophic maxilla and support dental implant placement was evaluated in two cases. Results: NMP released significantly more BMP-7 than DBM over 14 days. NMP-iDBM mixtures were osteoinductive when the mixture contained 100%, 75%, and 50% NMP. MicroCT analysis of OsteoAMP, i-Factor, ViviGen, and Trinity showed they all contained mineralized tissue prior to implantation, confounding microCT evaluation of the recovered implants. Histological analysis showed that OsteoAMP, OsteoFactor, and i-Factor failed to form bone Conclusion: NMP is osteoinductive
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.