ArticleHeliyon2024
Effect of buccal fat autotransplantation on improving the alveolar socket bone regeneration: An in-vivo study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral stem cells in combination with hydrogels as biomimetic bioactive platforms for periodontal tissue engineering.Frontiers in oral health · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are various materials used for socket preservation following dental extraction. The aim of the present animal study was to histologically investigate the efficacy of buccal fat autotransplantation on alveolar bone regeneration following dental extraction. Study design: In this prospective, double-blind laboratory experiment with a split-mouth design, 16 mandibular second premolar teeth in eight beagle dogs were extracted, and half of the extraction sockets were randomly filled using buccal fat autotransplantation. Other samples were left untouched to heal normally by the formed blood clot. Buccal fat autotransplantation was the primary predictor variable, and the type and amount of newly formed bone were the primary outcome variables. Assessment methods were the H & E coloring technique and histomorphometric evaluation. The significance level was set at 0.05, and data was subjected to Chi-Square and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests using SAS statistical software version 9.4. Results: From the total number of 16 samples in 8 dogs, 50% of the samples in the intervention group represented inflammation with lower intensity compared to 33% in the control group; however, this difference was not considered statistically significant (Chi-Square test, P-value = 0.55). Wilcoxon test results showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding the mean amount of total bone formation (Z = 0.00, P-value = 1.00). Conclusion: It was inferred from the outcomes of the present study that when compared to the normal healing of the socket, buccal fat autotransplantation did not represent with superior outcome concerning the socket 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.