ArticleDental research journal2026
Comparison of bone regeneration in rabbit calvarial defects following the use of two different xenografts with a barrier membrane: A histological, histomorphometric, and micro-computed tomography study.
Article in Dental research 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study compared bone regeneration in rabbit calvarial defects using two different xenografts with a barrier membrane by histological, histomorphometric, and micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) analyses. Materials and Methods: This study was designed as a single-blind interventional experimental animal study that conducted on 20 male New Zealand rabbits. The rabbits were anesthetized, a full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap was elevated, and four bone defects with 8 mm diameter were created in their calvaria at the two sides of their midsagittal suture. Two defects were randomly filled with Bio-Oss and NOVA xenografts. The other two defects remained empty. Except for one control defect, the remaining three were covered with a resorbable membrane. Ten rabbits were sacrificed after 4 and the remaining 10 after 8 weeks. Histological sections underwent micro-CT and histological assessments for new bone formation, bone maturation, residual particles, degree of inflammation, foreign body reaction, and soft-tissue formation. Results: The percentage of new bone formation increased at 8 weeks compared with 4 weeks and had a similar trend in Bio-Oss and NOVA groups ( Conclusion: Considering the similar rate of new bone formation and residual particles, both Bio-Oss and NOVA may be successfully used as scaffold with a barrier membrane for regeneration of bone defects.
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.