ReviewOral health & preventive dentistry2022
Papillary Reconstruction using Hyaluronic Acid: A Review.
Review in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this review is to analyse the use of hyaluronic acid injection in the interdental space to reconstruct the papilla in animal models and humans. MATERIALS AND
methodsElectronic databases were searched up to May 2022, and additional hand searching was performed. The search strategy was implemented according to the PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criteria were: studies written in English, studies using hyaluronic acid, in vivo studies, studies with a precise number of specimens, case series with ≥6 patients, and studies published after 2010. The risk of bias was assessed for each study that could be evaluated.
resultsA total of 19 articles were selected and reviewed in this review. Due to the great heterogeneity of the protocols and materials, comparison between studies was not possible. However, using this technique, the studies found statistically significant improvements in most cases. The filling percentages ranged from 19% to 100%. Regarding patient satisfaction, the few studies that evaluated this parameter found statistically significant results with most patients willing to repeat the experience. Regarding side effects, only two studies reported them. Moreover, the procedure does not seem to be very painful.
conclusionThe results suggest that hyaluronic acid injections seem to be effective in reconstructing papillary volume. However, to date, too few clinical trials with a high level of proof have been conducted on this technique. Future studies will have to work on the size of the sample, the concentration of the product, the number of injections and the injection method.
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.