Trial reportBioMed research international2019
A Comparison between Primary and Secondary Flap Coverage in Ridge Preservation Procedures: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Trial report in BioMed research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03136913 (A Comparison Between Primary and Secondary Flap Coverage in Extraction Sites), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
A Comparison Between Primary and Secondary Flap Coverage in Extraction Sites: A Pilot Study
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of an open healing approach on peri-implant mucosa following immediate implant placement with transmucosal provisionalization: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Omega-3 Fatty Acids Effects on Inflammatory Biomarkers and Lipid Profiles among Diabetic and Cardiovascular Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Scientific reports · 2019Pooled it
- Clinical applications of concentrated growth factors membrane for sealing the socket in alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled trial.International journal of implant dentistry · 2022Trial
- Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Socket Preservation Technique Using Allogeneic and Xenogeneic Materials: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Alveolar Ridge Preservation in Posterior Extraction Sockets: A Literature Review and Proposal of a Novel Therapeutic Classification.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Review
- Clinical and Radiological Evaluation of Flap and Flapless Procedures with Biomaterials in Alveolar Ridge Preservation.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- A Comparative Study of the Flap and Flapless Techniques of Ridge Preservation: A Clinical Double-Blinded Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2023Article
- Buccal periosteal inversion (BUPI) for defect closure and keratinized gingiva width preservation after tooth extraction - technique modification.The Saudi dental journal · 2021Article
- Prevalence of periodontitis and alveolar bone loss in a patient population at Harvard School of Dental Medicine.BMC oral health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo assess the bone dimensional changes after extraction and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using primary coverage (closed flap technique, CFT) or healing by secondary intention (open flap technique, OFT). MATERIALS AND
methodsTen patients (split mouth design) were planned for extraction and ARP. All sites received ARP with freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) and nonresorbable membrane after extraction. Clinical standardized measurements were used to assess the dimensional alterations of the alveolar ridge.
resultsAll patients completed the study, and a total of 20 sites were randomized to CFT or OFT group. Center height (mean difference of 8.1 mm, SD =1.9 CFT, and 7.5 mm, SD= 1.8 OFT) and buccal height (mean difference of 0.8 mm, SD =1.0 CFT, and 0.3 mm, SD= 1.1 OFT) were significantly different within the same group. However, there was no statistically significant difference between groups. In the OFT group, the keratinized tissue width was higher and the pain VAS scores at 24 hours were lower compared with the CFT (
conclusionsLeaving the flap open did not have any effects on the dimensional changes of bone height or width. However, there was a wider band of keratinized tissue and less pain with the CFT compared with the OFT. The study protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier NCT03136913.
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.