Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34825280›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2022

Sealing materials for post-extraction site: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Massimo Del Fabbro, Grazia Tommasato, Paolo Pesce, Andrea Ravidà, Shahnawaz Khijmatgar, Anton Sculean, Matthew Galli, Donato Antonacci, Luigi Canullo

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Bone Regeneration: Overview and Future Trends.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Massimo Del Fabbro *Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Grazia Tommasato *Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Paolo PesceUniversity of Genova, Genoa, Italy.
Andrea RavidàUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Shahnawaz KhijmatgarDepartment of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Anton SculeanDepartment of Periodontology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Matthew GalliUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Donato Antonacci, Bari, Italy.
Luigi CanulloDepartment of Periodontology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. luigicanullo@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9875-2929
University of Milan · ITUniversity of Bern · CHUniversity of Michigan · USUniversity of Genoa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimBy means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis, this study aims to answer the following questions: (a) does the placement of a biomaterial over an extraction socket lead to better outcomes in terms of horizontal and vertical alveolar dimensional changes and percentage of new bone formation than healing without coverage? And (b) which biomaterial(s) provide(s) the better outcomes? MATERIALS AND

methodsParallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials treating ≥ 10 patients were included in this analysis. Studies were identified with MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. Primary outcomes were preservation of horizontal and vertical alveolar dimension and new bone formation inside the socket. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) were undertaken to obtain estimates for primary outcomes. For NMA, prediction intervals were calculated to estimate clinical efficacy, and SUCRA was used to rank the materials based on their performance; multidimensional ranking was used to rank treatments based on dissimilarity. The manuscript represents the proceedings of a consensus conference of the Italian Society of Osseointegration (IAO).

resultsTwelve trials were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis: 312 sites were evaluated. Autologous soft tissue grafts were associated with better horizontal changes compared to resorbable membranes. A statistically significant difference in favor of resorbable membranes, when compared to no membrane, was found, with no statistically significant heterogeneity. For the comparison between crosslinked and non-crosslinked membranes, a statistically significant difference was found in favor of the latter and confirmed by histomorphometric NMA analysis. Given the relatively high heterogeneity detected in terms of treatment approaches, materials, and outcome assessment, the findings of the NMA must be interpreted cautiously.

conclusionsCoverage of the healing site is associated with superior results compared to no coverage, but no specific sealing technique and/or biomaterial provides better results than others. RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to better elucidate the trends emerged from the present analysis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Autologous soft tissue grafts and membranes covering graft materials in post-extraction sites were proved to allow lower hard tissue shrinkage compared to the absence of coverage material with sealing effect. Histomorphometric analyses showed that non-crosslinked membranes provide improved hard tissue regeneration when compared to crosslinked ones.

Indexed as

Alveolar Ridge AugmentationBiocompatible MaterialsDental CareHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTooth ExtractionTooth SocketTreatment OutcomeWound HealingBiocompatible MaterialsAlveolar ridge preservationCoverageCrosslinked membraneHistomorphometric analysisNetwork meta-analysisNon-crosslinked membraneNon-resorbable membraneResorbable membraneSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34825280
PMCPMC8816783
OpenAlexW3216955295

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.