ArticleJournal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects2014
Comparison of ADM and Connective Tissue Graft as the Membrane in Class II Furcation Defect Regeneration: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects, 2014. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims. Furcally-involved teeth present unique challenges to the success of periodontal therapy and influence treatment outcomes. This study aimed to assess to compare use of ADM and connective tissue membrane in class II furcation defect regeneration. Materials and methods. 10 patient with 2 bilaterally class II furcation defects in first and/or second maxilla or man-dibular molar without interproximal furcation involvement, were selected. Four weeks after initial phase of treatment, before and thorough the surgery pocket depth (PD), clinical attachment level to stent (CAL-S), free gingival margin to stent(FGM-S) , crestal bone to stent (Crest-S), horizontal defect depth to stent (HDD-S) and vertical defect depth to stent (VDD-S) and crestal bone to defect depth measured from stent margin. Thereafter, one side randomly treated using connective tissue and DFDBA (study group) and opposite side received ADM and DFDBA (control group). After 6 months, soft and hard tissue parameters measured again in re-entry. Results. Both groups presented improvements after therapies (P & 0.05). No inter-group differences were seen in PD re-duction (P = 0.275), CAL gain (P = 0.156), free gingival margin (P = 0.146), crest of the bone (P = 0.248), reduction in horizontal defects depth (P = 0.139) and reduction in vertical defects depth (P = 0.149). Conclusion. Both treatments modalities have potential of regeneration without any adverse effect on healing process. Connective tissue grafts did not have significant higher bone fill compared to that of ADM.
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.