SynthesisClinical oral investigations2022
Sealing materials for post-extraction site: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical evaluation of different alveolar ridge preservation techniques after tooth extraction: a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Trial
- Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Socket Preservation Technique Using Allogeneic and Xenogeneic Materials: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Effects of extended guided bone regeneration on the labial alveolar wall of adjacent teeth in the anterior maxilla: a retrospective cohort study.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- Tooth Root-Derived Graft Promotes Complete Bone Replacement in Alveolar Ridge Preservation: Comparative Study with a Collagenic Xenograft in Dogs.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Alveolar Ridge Preservation in Posterior Extraction Sockets: A Literature Review and Proposal of a Novel Therapeutic Classification.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Review
- In Vitro Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Resorbable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- The Effectiveness and Complication Rate of Resorbable Biopolymers in Oral Surgery: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- A Histologic Study on the Use of Tooth as a Graft Material in Oral Surgery: Analysis of 187 Samples.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Alveolar Ridge Preservation in Periodontally Compromised Molar Extraction Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Hyaluronic Acid Treatment of Post-Extraction Tooth Socket Healing in Subjects with Diabetes Mellitus Type 2: A Randomized Split-Mouth Controlled Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Current Knowledge on the Healing of the Extraction Socket: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Evaluation between Biodegradable Magnesium Metal GBR Membrane and Bovine Graft with or without Hyaluronate.Membranes · 2023Article
- Bone Regeneration: Overview and Future Trends.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- An Analysis of Different Techniques Used to Seal Post-Extractive Sites-A Preliminary Report.Dentistry journal · 2022Article
- The Use of Biocompatible Membranes in Oral Surgery: The Past, Present & Future Directions. A Narrative Review.Membranes · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.