ArticleCureus2023
An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Local Delivery of Zoledronic Acid in Accelerating Bone Healing After the Extraction of Mandibular Third Molars.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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, 5 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective Zoledronic acid (ZA) has been reported to aid with the formation of new bone, inhibit osteoclastic bone resorption, and improve osteoblast proliferation. This split-mouth randomized clinical research aimed to evaluate the effect of the local application of ZA on bone regeneration after the removal of bilateral mandibular third molars. Methods A randomized, split-mouth study involving 12 patients aged 19-35 years requiring extraction of bilaterally mandibular third molars was conducted. The extraction of mandibular third molars on both sides was conducted in one session for all patients. In each participant, a gelatin sponge (Gelfoam) soaked with ZA was randomly applied to one cavity of the extraction socket. A gelatin sponge soaked with normal saline was applied to the opposite cavity; all patients were blinded as to which socket the drug was applied to. The study was conducted over a period of two months. The changes in bone density (BD) in the socket were assessed through cone-beam CT (CBCT) images; two images were taken for each patient at two different time points: immediately after extraction (T0) and after two months (T1). Results BD values in the socket on both sides of extraction increased from T0 to T1. There were statistically significant differences when comparing the amount of change in radiographic BD from T0 to T1 between the two sides of the extraction (p<0.05); the increase in radial BD between the two different time points was more significant in the ZA group. Conclusions Within the limitation of this study, the local application of ZA radiographically improved bone healing in a statistically significant manner and could be a cost-effective and simple way to activate bone regeneration.
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.