ArticleInternational journal of biomaterials2012
Bone Morphometric Evaluation around Immediately Placed Implants Covered with Porcine-Derived Pericardium Membrane: An Experimental Study in Dogs.
Article in International journal of biomaterials, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective. To investigate whether porcine-derived bioresorbable pericardium membrane coverage enhances the osseointegration around implants placed in fresh extraction sockets. Study Design. Twenty-four commercially available endosseous implants were placed in the fresh extraction sockets of the mandibular first molar of mature beagles (n = 6). On one side, implants and osteotomy sites were covered with porcine-derived bioresorbable pericardium membranes, whereas on the other side, no membranes were used. After 6 weeks, samples were retrieved and were histologically processed for histomorphometric analysis. Results. The histological observation showed that bone loss and soft tissue migration in the coronal region of the implant were evident for the control group, whereas bone fill was evident up to the neck of the implant for the membrane-covered group. Bone-to-implant contact was significantly higher for the membrane-covered group compared to the control group, 75% and 45% (P < 0.02), respectively. Conclusion. The experimental membranes proved to regenerate bone around implants placed in fresh extraction sockets without soft tissue intrusion.
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.