Trial reportClinical oral investigations2020
Multi-modular bone healing assessment in a randomized controlled clinical trial of root-end surgery with the use of leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin and an occlusive membrane.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of regenerative procedure on the healing process following surgical root canal treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- The efficacy of Platelet and Leukocyte Rich Fibrin (L-PRF) in the healing process and bone repair in oral and maxillofacial surgeries: a systematic review.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical Outcomes of Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Endodontic Microsurgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Optimising Outcomes in Endodontic Microsurgery: Evidence, Uncertainties and Future Directions.International endodontic journal · 2026Review
- Will L-PRF Be the Future of Endodontic Microsurgery? A Series of Case Reports.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- Leukocyte-Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Bone Regeneration after Periapical Surgery: A 30-Month Follow-Up Clinical Report.Reports (MDPI) · 2024Article
- Biomaterial scaffolds in maxillofacial bone tissue engineering: A review of recent advances.Bioactive materials · 2024Review
- The Effectiveness of Autologous Platelet Concentrates in the Clinical and Radiographic Healing after Endodontic Surgery: A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Comparison of healing assessments of periapical endodontic surgery using conventional radiography and cone-beam computed tomography: A systematic review.Imaging science in dentistry · 2022Review
- Effect of platelet-rich fibrin on periapical healing and resolution of clinical symptoms in patients following periapical surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodonticsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to assess in a multi-modular manner the bone healing 1 year post root-end surgery (RES) with leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (LPRF) and Bio-Gide® (BG; Geistlich Pharma North America, Inc., Princeton, USA) as an occlusive membrane. MATERIALS AND
methodsA randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) of RES +/- LPRF and +/- BG was performed. The follow-up until 1 year post RES was performed by means of ultrasound imaging (UI), periapical radiographs (PR), and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
resultsFrom the 50 included patients, 6 dropped-out during follow-up. For the 44 assessed patients (34 with UI and 42 with PR and CBCT), there was no evidence (p > 0.05) for an effect of LRPF, neither on UI measurements nor on CBCT assessments. On the contrary, there was an indication for a better outcome with BG. UI presented significant shorter healing time for the bony crypt surface (p = 0.014) and cortical opening (p = 0.006) for the groups with BG. The qualitative CBCT assessment for the combined scores of the apical area and cortical plane was significantly higher for BG (p = 0.01 and 0.02). The quantitative CBCT measurement for bone healing after 1 year was lower with BG (p = 0.019), as well as the percentage of non-zero values (p = 0.026), irrespective of the preoperative lesion size and type. Furthermore, UI seemed to be safer for frequent follow-up during the early postoperative stage (0-3 months), whereas CBCT gave more accurate results 1 year post RES. Amongst the assessors, the qualitative PR analysis was inconsistent for a favorable outcome 1 year post RES with LPRF (p = 0.11 and p = 0.023), but consistent for BG (p = 0.024 and p = 0.023).
conclusionsThere was no evidence for improvement of bone healing when RES was applied with LPRF in comparison with RES without LPRF. However, RES with BG gave evidence for a better outcome than RES without BG. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The addition of an occlusive membrane rather than an autologous platelet concentrate improved bone regeneration 1 year post RES significantly, irrespective of the assessment device applied. The accuracy of PR assessment is questionable.
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.