Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36285999›Full record

ArticleDentistry journal2022

An Analysis of Different Techniques Used to Seal Post-Extractive Sites-A Preliminary Report.

Paolo Pesce, Eitan Mijiritsky, Luigi Canullo, Maria Menini, Vito Carlo Alberto Caponio, Andrea Grassi, Luca Gobbato, Domenico Baldi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dentistry journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Bone Regeneration: Overview and Future Trends.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    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

8 authors.

Paolo PesceDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Genova, 16100 Genoa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8726-4145
Eitan MijiritskyDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6139001, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-1661-7529
Luigi CanulloDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Genova, 16100 Genoa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9875-2929
Maria MeniniDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Genova, 16100 Genoa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6503-1201
Vito Carlo Alberto CaponioDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5080-5921
Andrea GrassiPrivate Practice, 42100 Reggio Emilia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1345-5250
Luca GobbatoPrivate Practice, 35027 Padua, Italy.
Domenico BaldiDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Genova, 16100 Genoa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBone grafting in post-extractive site improves tissue regeneration. Soft tissue sealing of the grafted post-extractive alveolus is supposed to limit microbiological contamination from the oral cavity and to stabilize the coagulum. Several techniques are presented in the literature to reach this goal using different heterologous matrices or autogenous grafts. In addition, recently, a technique based on the use of granulation tissue in the post-extractive alveolus has been proposed.

aimTo compare the effect of different graft sealing approaches in post-extractive sites by qualitatively evaluating their healing process. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective investigation included 30 patients requiring post-extractive site regeneration in the aesthetic area. Post-extractive sites were regenerated using a bovine bone matrix and patients were divided into three groups (10 patients in each group) according to the material used to seal the alveolar socket. In the UD group, the granulation tissue was used to seal the defect; in the PC group, epithelial-connective soft tissue graft was used, and in the COLL group, a collagen-based membrane was employed. Images of the post-extractive sites at different follow-up periods (2 and 12 weeks) were taken and the healing process was blindly evaluated by two independent practitioners. The Healing Index (HI) by Landry, Turnbull and Howley was used to assess the quality of the healing process. The combination of presence/absence of five clinical criteria defines an HI ranging from 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent). Patients' clinical-pathological variables were recorded. One-way ANOVA was used to explore the dependence of HI on the different socket preservation protocols.

resultsBased on clinical-pathological characteristics of the included patients, there were no statistically significant differences among the different sealing techniques. At the 2-week follow-up appointment, HI did not differ among the socket preservation protocols evaluated. Moreover, smoking status and reason for extraction did not influence the HI among the three groups (two-way ANOVA

conclusionsThe use of collagen porcine membranes may represent a suitable option to improve the patient healing process in grafted post-extractive sites together with reducing the surgical intervention time compared to alternative sealing techniques.

Indexed as

alveolar ridge preservationgraft materialsocket preservationtooth extraction

Identifiers

PMID36285999
PMCPMC9600503

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.