ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2021
Comparison of extraction sites versus artificial defects with xenogenic bone substitute in minipigs.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preclinical Performance of a Novel Dental Implant Design Reducing Mechanical Stress in Cortical Bone.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Histomorphometric Assessment of Non-Decalcified Plastic-Embedded Specimens for Evaluation of Bone Regeneration Using Bone Substitute Materials-A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- In Vitro Handling Characteristics of a Particulate Bone Substitute for Ridge Preservation Procedures.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of extraction sites versus artificial defects with xenogenic bone substitute in minipigs.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2021Article
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe preclinical evaluation of bone substitutes is frequently performed in artificially created defects. However, such defects do not reflect the predominant clinical application of bone substitutes for socket preservation. Hence, the goal of this animal study was to compare the performance of a xenogenic bone substitute in extraction sites versus artificial defects. MATERIAL AND
methodsFour study sites each were created in the mandibles of four minipigs in the region of the third premolars and first molars, respectively. On one side, fresh extraction sockets were established while contralaterally trephine defects were created in healed alveolar bone. All sites were augmented using a particulate xenogenic bone substitute, covered by resorbable membranes and allowed to heal for 12 weeks. The amounts of new bone, non-bone tissue and remaining bone substitute granules were quantified through histological and micro-CT analysis. Comparative statistics were based on t-tests for two samples and ANOVA with the level of significance set at α = 0.05.
resultsHistomorphometric data from only two animals could be quantitatively analyzed due to difficulty with identifying the surgical sites. The percentage of newly formed bone ranged between 53.2% ± 5.6% for artificial defects and 54.9% ± 12.4% for extraction sites. With the exception of ANOVA indicating a greater amount of non-bone tissue in extraction sites as compared to artificial sites (p = 0.047), no statistically significant differences were observed. Micro-CT scans showed patterns similar to the ones observed in histomorphometry. As extraction sites could be identified only in two micro-CT reconstructions, quantitative assessment was not undertaken.
conclusionsDespite the comparable performance of bone substitute material in artificial defects and extraction sites found here, the data gathered with this experiment was insufficient for showing equivalence of both approaches.
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.