Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30617661›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2019

Histologic analyses of flapless ridge preservation in sockets with buccal dehiscence defects using two alloplastic bone graft substitutes.

Nadja Naenni, Stefan P Bienz, Ronald E Jung, Christoph H F Hämmerle, Daniel S Thoma

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nadja NaenniClinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032, Zurich, Switzerland. nadja.naenni@zzm.uzh.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6689-2684
Stefan P BienzClinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032, Zurich, Switzerland.
Ronald E JungClinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032, Zurich, Switzerland.
Christoph H F HämmerleClinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032, Zurich, Switzerland.
Daniel S ThomaClinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate whether one of two synthetic bone substitute materials used for ridge preservation in the extraction sockets with buccal dehiscence defects was superior regarding new bone formation and ridge preservation and to compare it to sites left for spontaneous healing. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn sixteen dogs, P3 and P4 were hemi-sectioned and the respective distal roots were extracted. Following the preparation of a mucoperiosteal flap without vertical releasing incisions, 50% of the buccal bone was carefully removed. The extraction sites were randomly assigned either to a ridge preservation procedure (alloplastic bone substitute material (two test groups)) or to spontaneous healing (control group). Descriptive histology and histomorphometric analyses were performed at healing times of 4, 8, and 16 weeks. In case of homogeneous variances, the results were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's post-hoc test. If inhomogeneous, the data was analyzed using Welch-type ANOVA, followed by the Games-Howell post-hoc test.

resultsThe use of bone substitute material led to significantly greater horizontal dimensions amounting to 3.3 mm (SD = 0.67; test 1) and 3.5 mm (SD = 0.72; test 2) compared to spontaneous healing (1.7 mm, SD = 0.23) at 16 weeks of healing (p < 0.0001). A significant difference was observed between spontaneous healing and the test groups in terms of newly formed bone tissue at 4, 8, and 16 weeks (p = 0.001), with values reaching 7.9, 21.8, and 36.8% (test 1), 5.0, 10.4, and 29% (test 2), and 26.2, 43.5, and 56.4% (control), but there were no significant differences between the test groups (p > 0.05). The final ridge profile was more favorable after ridge preservation (p < 0.001) as demonstrated by a loss of 28.8% (spontaneous healing) and an increase in both test groups at 16 weeks (test 1 = 60.5% and test 2 = 31.2%).

conclusionsThe use of alloplastic materials rendered greater horizontal dimensions and a more favorable maintenance of the ridge profile. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Alloplastic bone substitute materials can successfully be used for ridge preservation procedures.

Indexed as

Alveolar Ridge AugmentationBone SubstitutesTooth ExtractionAnimalsDogsRandom AllocationTooth SocketWound HealingBone SubstitutesAlloplastic bone substituteAlveolar ridge augmentationRidge preservation

Identifiers

PMID30617661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.