Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32803798›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral implants research2020

Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis defects with two different xenograft granules: A randomized clinical pilot study.

Angeliki Polymeri, David Anssari-Moin, Joyce van der Horst, Daniel Wismeijer, Marja L Laine, Bruno G Loos

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04769609 (Reconstructive Surgical Therapy of Peri-implantitis), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

NCT04769609 completednot on this map

Reconstructive Surgical Therapy of Peri-implantitis: 3-year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeobservationalSponsorGazi UniversityRan2020 to 2021Enrolled52ConditionsPeri-ImplantitisArmsbioresorbable membrane
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Angeliki PolymeriDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5583-0365
David Anssari-MoinDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joyce van der HorstDepartment Oral Implantology and Prosthodontics, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Daniel WismeijerDepartment Oral Implantology and Prosthodontics, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6736-1941
Marja L LaineDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6052-041X
Bruno G LoosDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8794-552X
Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam · NL

Funding

Zimmer Biomet
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate whether xenograft EB (EndoBon) is non-inferior to xenograft BO (Bio-Oss) when used in reconstructive surgery of peri-implant osseous defects. MATERIALS AND

methodsDental patients with one implant each demonstrating peri-implantitis were randomized to receive surgical debridement and defect fill with either BO or EB. Changes in bone level (BL) and intrabony defect depth (IDD) evaluated radiographically were the primary outcomes. The secondary outcomes included changes in probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), and suppuration on probing (SoP). All outcomes were recorded before treatment and at 6 and 12 months post-treatment.

resultsTwenty-four patients (n = 11 BO, n = 13 EB) completed the study. Both groups demonstrated significant within-group improvements in all clinical and radiographic parameters at 6 and 12 months (p ≤ .001). At 12 months, both groups presented with IDD reductions of 2.5-3.0 mm on average. The inter-group differences were not statistically significant at all time points and for all the examined parameters (p > .05). While the radiographic defect fill in both groups exceeded > 1 mm and can be considered treatment success, successful treatment outcomes as defined by Consensus Reporting (no further bone loss, PPD ≤ 5 mm, no BOP, and no SoP) were identified in 2/11 (18%) BO and 0/13 (0%) EB individuals (Fisher's exact test, p = .199).

conclusionsWithin the limitations of this pilot study, the application of xenograft EB showed to be non-inferior to xenograft BO when used in reconstructive surgery of peri-implant osseous defects.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsHeterograftsPeri-ImplantitisPlastic Surgery ProceduresHumansPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDental Implantsbone substitutedefect reductionperi-implantitispilot studyradiographic evaluationsurgical treatment

Identifiers

PMID32803798
PMCPMC7693249
OpenAlexW3049103234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.