Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31346723›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2020

Effects of local application of alendronate on early healing of extraction socket in dogs.

Nikola Saulacic, Fernando Muñoz, Eizaburo Kobayashi, Vivianne Chappuis, Antonio Gonzáles-Cantalapiedra, Willy Hofstetter

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05771038 (Assessment of Bone Quality After Defective Socket Preservation Using Sodium Alendronate Gel Compared to Sticky Bone), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
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.

NCT05771038 early_phase1unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Assessment of Bone Quality After Defective Socket Preservation Using Sodium Alendronate Gel Compared to Sticky Bone : A Histomorphometric Randomized Clinical Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2023 to 2023Enrolled32ConditionsBone Quality Assessment, Preserved Sockets, Sodium Alendronate, Sticky BoneArmssocket preservation using sodium alendronate gel, socket preservation using sticky bone
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Nikola SaulacicDepartment of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 10, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland. nikola.saulacic@insel.ch.
Fernando MuñozVeterinary Faculty Lugo, University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain.
Eizaburo KobayashiDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Life Dentistry at Niigata, The Nippon Dental University, Niigata, Japan.
Vivianne ChappuisDepartment of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Antonio Gonzáles-CantalapiedraVeterinary Faculty Lugo, University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain.
Willy HofstetterBone Biology & Orthopaedic Research, Department for BioMedical Research, DBMR, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
University of Bern · CHUniversidade de Santiago de Compostela · ESNippon Dental University · JP

Funding

International Team for Implantology Nr. 1067_2015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of the present study was to assess the effects of alendronate (ALN) on bone remodeling following tooth extraction in a dog model. MATERIAL AND

methodsFor the study, fifteen male Beagles dogs of approximately 12 months of age were used. Mesial roots of four mandibular premolars were endodontically treated, and the distal roots were removed. ALN concentrations of 0.5, 1, and 2 mg/mL were topically applied for 15 min, while a sterile saline was used as a negative control. After the healing period of 1, 2, and 8 weeks, the samples were analyzed by micro-CT and histology.

resultsTreatment with ALN increased vertical distance between the lingual and the buccal crestal bones. While the ALN-treated sockets had preserved more lingual bone areas, control sockets showed better preservation of the buccal bone areas. ALN treatment resulted in more osteoid formation within the extraction sockets compared with the control. Higher bone volume was found in ALN groups than in the control at 2-week and 8-week healing periods, reaching the significant difference only for the extraction sockets pooled for the ALN treatment.

conclusionsAlthough ALN treatment could not prevent buccal bone resorption following tooth extraction in dogs, it proved beneficial for the preservation of the lingual bone and formation of new bone within the socket. There was no clear relation between the ALN dosages and the alterations within the extraction sockets. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: ALN affects bone remodeling of the extraction socket. The optimal concentration remains to be determined in future studies.

Indexed as

Bone RemodelingTooth ExtractionTooth SocketWound HealingAlendronateAnimalsDogsMaleTooth RootAlendronateAlendronateBone remodelingDog modelExtraction socket

Identifiers

PMID31346723
OpenAlexW2966158606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.