ArticleMembranes2022
Article in Membranes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The influence of electrical high-speed rotation on mandibular third molar surgeries: a prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical and radiographic study.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Evaluation of toxicity, local biocompatibility, biodegradation, and systemic metabolism of cellulose/alginate/strontium apatite membranes implanted subcutaneously in mice.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe degree of biodegradation and the inflammatory response of membranes employed for guided bone regeneration directly impact the outcome of this technique. This study aimed to evaluate four different experimental versions of Poly (L-lactate-co-Trimethylene Carbonate) (PTMC) + Poly (L-lactate-co-glycolate) (PLGA) membranes, implanted in mouse subcutaneous tissue, compared to a commercially available membrane and a Sham group.
methodsSixty Balb-C mice were randomly divided into six experimental groups and subdivided into 1, 3, 6 and 12 weeks (n = 5 groups/period). The membranes (1 cm
resultsG1 and G4 allowed tissue adhesion and the permeation of inflammatory cells over time and showed greater phagocytic activity and permeability. G2 and G3 detached from the tissue in one and three weeks; however, in the more extended periods, they presented a rectilinear and homogeneous aspect and were not absorbed. G2 had a major inflammatory reaction. G5 was almost completely absorbed after 12 weeks.
conclusionsThe membranes are considered biocompatible. G5 showed a higher degree of biosorption, followed by G1 and G4. G2 and G3 are considered non-absorbable in the studied periods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.