ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Augmentation Stability of Guided Bone Regeneration for Peri-Implant Dehiscence Defects with L-shaped Porcine-Derived Block Bone Substitute.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Particulate Versus Cross-Linked Collagenated Bone Substitutes for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical oral implants research · 2025Trial
- Comparative Evaluation of Bovine- and Porcine-Derived Xenografts in Rabbit Calvarial and Canine Mandibular Dehiscence Models.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Effect of L-shaped, loosely packed versus non-trimmed, compactly packed non-fixed collagenated bone blocks on the stability of augmented sites in chronic peri-implant dehiscence defects: a pre-clinicalJournal of periodontal & implant science · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the clinical and radiographic effectiveness of treating peri-implant bone defects with a new biphasic calcium phosphate bone graft: a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial.Journal of periodontal & implant science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Block bone substitutes have better augmentation stability for guided bone regeneration (GBR) than particulate bone substitutes. This study sought to determine whether GBR with an L-shaped porcine block bone (DPBM-C) differs from GBR with an L-shaped bovine block bone (DBBM-C) based on clinical, radiographic, and volumetric outcomes for peri-implant dehiscence defects. A total of 42 peri-implant defects were grafted with 20 L-shaped DPBM-C and 22 DBBM-C groups. The horizontal and vertical thicknesses of the augmented hard tissue were measured using sagittal cone-beam computed tomography, and the volumetric tissue change was evaluated by stereolithography image superimposition. Postoperative discomfort, early wound healing outcomes, and implant stability were also assessed. Among the clinical (subjective pain and swelling, wound dehiscence, membrane exposure, and periotest values), radiographic (changes in horizontal and vertical hard tissue thickness), and volumetric parameters of the L-shaped DPBM-C and DBBM-C groups during the healing period, only the periotest values showed a statistically significant difference (0.67 ± 1.19,
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.