ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2022
Automated Periotome versus Conventional Periotome in Intra-Alveolar Extraction of Sheep Jaw: An In Vitro Study.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive tooth extraction: the science and clinical strategies of socket preservation: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Atraumatic dental extraction is the way forward in modern dentistry. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of automated periotome with conventional periotome with regard to operating time, postoperative gingival laceration, and bone and tooth structure fractures. Methods: This is an in vitro study of forty posterior teeth of sheep mandibles. Ten sound healthy mandibles were selected, and each mandible was then divided into two quadrants with two teeth in each quadrant. Teeth were then extracted by conventional periotome for the first group (one quadrant) and by automated periotome for the second group (other quadrants). A statistically significant Results: No bone fracture was seen in any of the cases of automated periotome with a significance of 0.004 when compared to the fractures seen in seven cases in the conventional group. Whereas comparing the other parameters among the different groups did not show any significant difference. Conclusion: It is worthwhile to use the automated periotome in simple extractions, especially when implants are considered in the treatment plan.
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.