Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37981622›Full record

Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2024

Radiographic texture analysis of the hard tissue changes following socket preservation with allograft and xenograft materials for dental implantation: a randomized clinical trial.

Narges Bayat, Mohammad Ali Ghavimi, Kasra Rahimipour, Sedigheh Razi, Farzad Esmaeili

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

5 authors.

Narges BayatDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5282-6416
Mohammad Ali GhavimiDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Kasra RahimipourDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6449-3527
Sedigheh RaziDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1328-0083
Farzad EsmaeiliDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. Farzad56@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4026-0910

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to assess the hard tissue changes following socket preservation with allograft and xenograft materials for dental implantation by texture analysis (TA) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND

methodsThis prospective clinical trial was conducted on 25 patients who required the extraction of carious mandibular posterior teeth and their subsequent replacement with dental implants. The patients were categorized into three groups: (I) no socket preservation, (II) socket preservation with xenograft material, and (III) socket preservation with allograft material. Four months after tooth extraction, the patients were recalled for preoperative assessment before dental implantation, and CBCT scans were obtained (Kvp:110, mA:1.94, S:3.6). MaZda software was used to compare homogeneity, contrast, and texture complexity on axial CBCT sections among the three groups.

resultsSignificant differences existed among the three groups in all parameters (P < 0.05) except for the mean correlation parameter (P > 0.05). The results showed no significant difference between the no graft and xenograft groups regarding contrast and differential (dif.) entropy (P > 0.05). Also, no significant difference was found between the xenograft and allograft groups regarding the dif. variance and also between the no graft and allograft groups regarding the inverse difference moment(InvDfMom) and dif. variance parameters (P > 0.05). All other pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences (P < 0.05).

conclusionTA can be used for the quantification of radiographic changes of bone following socket preservation and potentially accelerate the process of decision-making for dental implant treatment.

Indexed as

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyHeterograftsTooth ExtractionTooth SocketAdultAllograftsBone TransplantationDental Implantation, EndosseousFemaleHumansMaleMandibleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesAllograftsCone-beam computed tomographyHeterograftsTexture analysisTooth extraction

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.