Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35160679›Full record

ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Classification Based on Extraction Socket Buccal Bone Morphology and Related Treatment Decision Tree.

Larissa Steigmann, Riccardo Di Gianfilippo, Marius Steigmann, Hom-Lay Wang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Larissa SteigmannDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7958-1124
Riccardo Di GianfilippoDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Marius SteigmannSteigmann Institute, 69151 Neckargemünd, Germany.
Hom-Lay WangDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlveolar ridge preservation (ARP) can successfully reduce volumetric ridge changes. However, there is still no consensus on what technique is the most advantageous for each specific clinical scenario. Hence, the aim of the present paper was to provide a treatment decision tree to guide the choice of predictable ARP procedures based on extraction socket buccal bone morphology and integrity. MATERIAL AND

methodsThree socket types (ST) are proposed and discussed based on buccal bone morphology (intact, dehiscence or fenestration).

resultsA decision tree for ARP was developed in order to merge ST classification with suitable treatment modalities. In the decision tree, the issue of when to allow unassisted healing or ARP was discussed. Described methods included bone grafting and collagen plug, and absorbable membrane or non-resorbable membrane, with or without flap elevation.

conclusionA decision tree for ARP procedures was provided to guide clinicians towards the most conservative and predictable treatment approach based on remaining socket anatomical structures after extraction.

Indexed as

alveolar ridge augmentationalveolar ridge preservationendosseous dental implantationtooth extractiontooth socket

Identifiers

PMID35160679
PMCPMC8836467

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.