ArticleCureus2022
A Comparative Clinical Evaluation of Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma, Synthetic Allograft, and Bioresorbable Xenograft During Immediate Implant Placement.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of xenograft and allograft bone graft for oral and maxillofacial surgical preparation prior to dental implantation: A systematic review.F1000Research · 2025Pooled it
- Extended platelet rich fibrin versus allograft as a space filling material in immediate dental implant placement.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Utilization of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Oral Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of an appropriate graft material helps in an adequate amount of osseointegration. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), a synthetic allograft (PerioGlas), and Bio-Oss, a bioresorbable xenograft in immediate implant procedures.
methodsIn this randomized, prospective study, 90 patients were categorized into three groups with 30 samples in each as Group A: patients who received PRP with an immediate implant; Group B: immediate implants with synthetic allograft (PerioGlas); and Group C: patients with immediate implants placed using bioresorbable xenograft (Bio-Oss). Postoperative follow-up was done based on plaque and gingival index, measurement of probing depths, and resorption of bone. Obtained data were statistically analyzed using the "one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)" test.
resultsInter-group statistical comparisons between gingival and plaque indices at three, six, and 12 months of follow-up in the study groups demonstrated no statistical significance (p > 0.05). The mean probing depths and resorption of bone at three, six, and 12 months of follow-up were statistically nonsignificant (p > 0.05) on the inter-group comparison.
conclusionIt could be concluded from the present study that there is no statistical superiority observed among PRP, PerioGlas, or Bio-Oss in terms of their usage as a graft material along with immediate implant placement procedure.
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.