ArticleBMC oral health2023
Radiographic comparison of atelocollagen versus deproteinized bovine bone minerals covered with a collagen membrane in alveolar ridge preservation: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of collagen sponge and xenografts versus collagen sponge alone in alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Assessment of periodontal regeneration with blood derivatives: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Odontology · 2026Review
- Bone changes following horizontal bone augmentation with resorbable and non-resorbable membranes: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Optimizing Alveolar Ridge Preservation and GBR: A Systematic Review of Membranes, Grafts, and Soft Tissue Strategies for Personalized Care.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
- Effect of a Recombinant Human Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor 2 (rhFGF-2)-Impregnated Atelocollagen Sponge on Vertical Guided Bone Regeneration in a Rat Calvarial Model.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Use of Deproteinized Bovine Bone in Association with Calcium Sulphate for Alveolar Socket Preservation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Changes of the Alveolar Bone Ridge Using Bone Mineral Grafts and Collagen Membranes after Tooth Extraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtelocollagen (AC) is a low-immunogenic collagen derivative with longer degradation time, which can be a suitable material for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). However, there are few human studies on AC using for ARP. This research aims to radiographically evaluate the efficacy of AC in comparison to deproteinized bovine bone minerals covered with a collagen membrane (DBBM/CM) in ARP.
methodsMedical records in the Implantology Department of the Hospital of Stomatology of Wuhan University were screened for patients who received flapless ARP using either AC or DBBM/CM. A total of 58 patients were included in this retrospective study. 28 patients were treated with AC, while 30 patients were used DBBM/CM. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were taken before extraction and after 6 months of healing. To assess the dimensional change of the extraction sockets, the scanning data were output and transferred to the digital software to measure horizontal bone width change, vertical bone height change and bone volume change in region of interest. To evaluate the bone quality of healed sockets, the bone density of virtual implants was evaluated.
resultsThe horizontal bone width changes at all five different levels showed no significant difference between the two groups. The largest horizontal bone width decrement in both groups occurred at the crest of ridge, which decreased 3.71 ± 1.67 mm in AC group and 3.53 ± 1.51 mm in DBBM/CM group (p = 0.68). At the central buccal aspect, the ridge height reduced 0.10 ± 1.30 mm in AC group, while increased 0.77 ± 2.43 mm in DBBM/CM group (p = 0.10). The vertical bone height differences between two groups showed no statistical significance. The percentages of volume absorption in AC group and DBBM/CM group were 12.37%±6.09% and 14.54%±11.21%, respectively. No significant difference in volume absorption was found (p = 0.36). The average bone density around virtual implants in AC group (649.41 ± 184.71 HU) was significantly lower than that in DBBM/CM group (985.23 ± 207.85 HU) (p < 0.001).
conclusionsARP with AC had a similar effect on limiting the dimensional alteration of alveolar ridge, when radiographically compared with DBBM/CM.
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.