Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34543475›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral implants research2021

Primary bone augmentation leads to equally stable marginal tissue conditions comparing the use of xenograft blocks infused with BMP-2 and autogenous bone blocks: A 3D analysis after 3 years.

Stefan P Bienz, Michael Payer, Jenni Hjerppe, Jürg Hüsler, Norbert Jakse, Patrick R Schmidlin, Christoph H F Hämmerle, Ronald E Jung, Daniel S Thoma

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. The Sympathetic Nervous System in Dental Implantology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

9 authors.

Stefan P BienzClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5262-6756
Michael PayerDepartment of Oral Surgery and Radiology, School of Dentistry, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4469-8335
Jenni HjerppeClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7852-6948
Jürg HüslerClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Norbert JakseDepartment of Oral Surgery and Radiology, School of Dentistry, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Patrick R SchmidlinClinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1377-0325
Christoph H F HämmerleClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8280-7347
Ronald E JungClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2055-1320
Daniel S ThomaClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1764-7447

Funding

Dentsply SironaGeistlich Pharma AGOsteology Foundation 06-004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo test whether or not primary bone augmentation using xenograft blocks infused with BMP-2 or autogenous bone blocks lead to similar results regarding the implant survival and 3D marginal soft tissue contours.

methodsTwenty-four patients with an insufficient ridge width for implant placement in need of primary augmentation were randomly assigned to either a block of deproteinized bovine bone mineral infused with rhBMP-2 (BMP) or an intraorally harvested block of autogenous bone (ABB). At 4 months, 1-4 dental implants were placed in the regenerated area. After crown insertion and at 3 years, peri-implant tissue parameters, two- and three-dimensional radiographic parameters, and soft tissue contour changes were evaluated. Explorative mixed model analyses were performed. The level of significance was set at 5%.

resultsAt the 3-year follow-up, 23 patients with 40 implants were evaluated. The implant survival rate was 100% in both groups. At baseline, the marginal hard tissue levels amounted to -0.4 ± 0.8 mm (mean ± standard deviation) in the BMP group and -0.7 ± 1.0 mm in the ABB group. At 3 years, these values were -0.2 ± 0.4 mm (BMP) and -0.6 ± 1.0 mm (ABB). At baseline, the thickness of the buccal hard tissue at the level of the implant shoulder measured 1.1 ± 1.1 mm (BMP) and 1.4 ± 1.0 mm (ABB). At 3 years, it measured 0.9 ± 0.9 mm (BMP) and 0.7 ± 0.6 mm (ABB).

conclusionsThe present study demonstrated excellent implant survival rates and stable marginal hard tissue levels in both augmentation groups, 3 years after crown insertion. In addition, the clinical stability of soft and hard tissues was demonstrated in both groups.

Indexed as

Dental Implantation, EndosseousAnimalsCattleHeterograftsHumansTransplantation, Heterologousautogenous bone blockbone morphogenetic protein 2bone regenerationcone beam-computed tomographydental implantsfollow-upguided bone regeneration

Identifiers

PMID34543475
PMCPMC9293361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.