Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33615421›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2021

Socket seal surgery techniques in the esthetic zone: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Andrea López-Pacheco, David Soto-Peñaloza, Mayra Gómez, David Peñarrocha-Oltra, Marco Antonio Alarcón

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. [Evaluation of the clinical effect of concentrated growth factor combined with sticky bone in maxillary anterior alveolar ridge preservation].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2025
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea López-PachecoPerioImplant Research Group UPCH, Academic Department of Clinical Stomatology, Cayetano Heredia Peruvian University, Lima, Peru. andrea.lopez.p@upch.pe.ORCID 0000-0003-0382-7495
David Soto-PeñalozaOral Surgery Unit, Department of Stomatology, Valencia University Medical and Dental School, Valencia, Spain.
Mayra GómezAcademic Department of Clinical Stomatology, Section of Oral Implantology, Cayetano Heredia Peruvian University, Lima, Peru.
David Peñarrocha-OltraOral Surgery Unit, Department of Stomatology, Valencia University Medical and Dental School, Valencia, Spain.
Marco Antonio AlarcónPerioImplant Research Group UPCH, Academic Department of Clinical Stomatology, Cayetano Heredia Peruvian University, Lima, Peru.
Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia · PEUniversitat de València · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe socket seal surgery (SSS) technique is a common alternative for the management of the post-extraction sockets that requires a primary closure of the wound to promote proper regeneration and ridge preservation.

objectiveTo learn about the effect of different SSS techniques on alveolar ridge preservation MATERIAL AND

methodsTwo independent and calibrated reviewers conducted an electronic search in PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science for randomized clinical trials (RCT) published up to June 2020. The evaluation of the risk of bias in the included studies was carried out following the Cochrane manual for interventions of systematic reviews, version 5.1.0. A meta-analysis of ridge width changes at - 1, - 3, and - 5 mm cutoff points from bone crest was conducted using a random-effects model. The risk of types I and II errors against accrued data was appraised obtaining the required information size using a trial sequential analysis package (TSA).

resultsA total of 135 sockets located in the esthetic zone were evaluated with a minimum of a 3-month follow-up after tooth extraction in 6 RCTs. The evaluated SSS techniques were free gingival graft (FGG), collagen matrix (CM), collagen sponge (CS), acellular dermal matrix (ADM), and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (PTFEm). The FGG in sockets without bone filling showed significant results in preserving both buccal and lingual bone height (- 1.42 mm in the experimental group versus - 0.01 in the control group). The comparison of CM and FGG with bone filling did not show clinical differences in terms of dimensional bone changes. No clinical differences were found in either width or gingival thickness when comparing CM and CS. The meta-analyses of RW changes comparing CM versus FGG showed no significant differences, but a trend for lessening horizontal reduction at - 1, - 3, and - 5 mm in favor of FGG. The TSA showed that accrued data did not reach the required information size, and more evidence is required for clinical significance inferences.

conclusionsThere are several predictable SSS techniques to improve clinical results in ridge preservation. More clinical studies in the form of clinical trials are required to demonstrate the superiority of one technique over another.

Indexed as

Alveolar Ridge AugmentationTooth SocketAlveolar ProcessEstheticsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAlveolar ridge augmentationHumansTooth extractionTooth socket

Identifiers

PMID33615421
PMCPMC7897591
OpenAlexW3129686781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.