ReviewDentistry journal2019
Regeneration of the Periodontal Apparatus in Aggressive Periodontitis Patients.
Review in Dentistry journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of intrabony defects with modified perforated membranes in aggressive periodontitis: a 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Trial
- A Modern Approach to Treat Molar/Incisor Pattern Periodontitis-Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Therapeutic Functions of Stem Cells from Oral Cavity: An Update.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare, retrospectively, the outcome of two different periodontal regeneration procedures in patients suffering from aggressive periodontitis (AgP). Twenty-eight patients were diagnosed with AgP, suffering from several intra-bony defects (IBD); that were treated by one of two periodontal regeneration techniques randomly assigned to each patient: a. guided tissue regeneration (GTR) or b. an application of extracted enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) combined with demineralized bone xenograft particles (DBX). Probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and gingival recession were recorded. Pre-treatment and follow-up (up to 10 years from the surgery) recordings were analyzed statistically within and between groups. A significant reduction was shown at time on PPD and CAL values, however, not between subject groups. CAL values decreased in all sites. At the EMD group (44 sites), CAL gain was 1.92 mm (±1.68) from pre-treatment to follow-up (p < 0.001) and at the GTR group (12 sites) CAL gain of 2.27 (±1.82) mm. In conclusion, 1⁻10 years observations have shown that surgical treatment of AgP patients by either GTR or by application of EMD/DBX results in similar successful clinical results.
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.