ArticleMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2019
Retrospective comparative clinical study for silk mat application into extraction socket.
Article in Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relevant Properties and Potential Applications of Sericin in Bone Regeneration.Current issues in molecular biology · 2023Review
- The optimal scaffold for silk sericin-based bone graft: collagen versus gelatin.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2023Article
- 4-Hexylresorcinol Treatment before Degumming Increases the β-Sheet Structure of Silk Sericin and BMP-2 Expression in RAW264.7 Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Silk Sericin: A Promising Sustainable Biomaterial for Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Applications.Polymers · 2022Review
- Autologous Dentin Graft after Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Extraction to Prevent Periodontal Pocket Formation-A Split-Mouth Pilot Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Treatment of Osseous Defects after Mandibular Third Molar Removal with a Resorbable Alloplastic Grafting Material: A Case Series with 1- to 2-Year Follow-Up.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Third Molar Extraction: Systematic Review of Recent Data.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSilk mats have been approved for clinical trials by the Korean Food and Drug Administration as membranes for guided tissue regeneration (GTR). In this study, silk mat application was compared to high-density polytetrafluoroethylene (dPTFE) membrane application or no membrane group.
methodsTo compare the silk mat group to the dPTFE group or the no membrane group, a retrospective sample collection was conducted. Bony defects were measured at the time of extraction (T0) and then at 3 months (T1) and 6 months after extraction (T2) on a digital panoramic view. Bone gain (BG) was calculated by subtracting from the bony defect at T0 to the bony defect at each follow-up.
resultsThe BG at T2 was 2.44 ± 2.49 mm, 4.18 ± 1.80 mm, and 4.24 ± 2.05 mm in the no membrane group, silk mat group, and dPTFE group, respectively. Both membrane groups had significantly higher BG than BG in the no membrane group at T2 (
conclusionsBoth membrane groups showed higher BG than the no membrane group.
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.