ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative mechanical analysis of collagen membranes derived from different tissues in an in vitro model simulating membrane-stabilized horizontal GBR.
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
backgroundThis study evaluates and compares the mechanical behavior of two collagen membranes in an in vitro model simulating membrane-stabilized horizontal guided bone regeneration (GBR). MATERIALS AND
methodsMegreen
resultsIn the tensile testing, BP demonstrated a significantly superior modulus of elasticity (146.71 ± 45.08 vs. 6.08 ± 2.66 MPa), maximum load tolerance (30.71 ± 8.42 vs. 4.49 ± 1.36 N), and tensile stress at maximum load (14.62 ± 4.01 vs. 1.61 ± 0.49 MPa; p < 0.001). Conversely, PD achieved high tensile extension at maximum load (6.32 ± 1.93 vs. 1.64 ± 0.32 mm) and percent tensile strain at maximum load (52.69 ± 16.03 vs. 13.63 ± 2.65%; p < 0.001). In the balloon dilation test, PD presented a slightly greater expansion diameter (4.43 ± 0.17 vs. 4.34 ± 0.05 mm; p = 0.047). In the compression model, BP significantly outperformed PD in maximum load (40.86 ± 4.54 vs. 7.90 (7.72-10.92) N) and displacement at maximum load (5.61 ± 0.60 vs. 3.65 ± 0.82 mm; p < 0.001).
conclusionsBP exhibited higher tensile strength and compression resistance, whereas PD showed greater deformability. These findings indicate distinct mechanical differences between the two collagen membranes under the tested conditions and may provide a mechanical basis for membrane selection in membrane-stabilized horizontal GBR.
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.