Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38747825›Full record

SynthesisBrazilian oral research2024

The effects of sodium alendronate on socket healing after tooth extraction: a systematic review of animal studies.

Nilo Guliberto Martins Chavarry, Pedro Villas Boas Abreu, Eduardo Jorge Feres-Filho, Daniele Masterson Tavares Pereira, Lucianne Cople Maia, Rafael Scaf De Molon

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Brazilian oral research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Nilo Guliberto Martins ChavarryUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ, School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2720-978X
Pedro Villas Boas AbreuUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ, School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2196-9481
Eduardo Jorge Feres-FilhoUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ, School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5795-8058
Daniele Masterson Tavares PereiraUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ, School of Dentistry, Library of Health Science Center, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7108-1117
Lucianne Cople MaiaUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ, School of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontic and Pediatric Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1026-9401
Rafael Scaf De MolonUniversidade Estadual Paulista - Unesp, School of Dentistry at Araçatuba, Department of Diagnosis and Surgery, Araçatuba, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1110-6233

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following question: "Does alendronate, a nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, improve or impair alveolar socket healing after tooth extraction in animal models"? To this end, a systematic review of the literature was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, as well as in the gray literature up to May 2023. Preclinical studies that evaluated alveolar healing after tooth extraction and the intake of sodium alendronate compared with placebo were included. Two investigators were responsible for screening the articles independently, extracting the data, and assessing their quality through the SYRCLE's RoB tool for randomized trials in animal studies. The study selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in studies, impact of alendronate on bone healing, and certainty of evidence were described in text and table formats. Methodological differences among the studies were restricted to the synthesis methods. The synthesis of qualitative results followed the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline. From the 19 included studies, five were considered to have low risk, three were of unclear risk, and eleven presented a high risk of bias. The studies were considered heterogeneous regarding alendronate posology, including its dosage and route of administration. Furthermore, a variety of animal species, different age ranges, diverse teeth extracted, and exposure or not to ovariectomy contributed to the lack of parity of the selected studies. Our results indicated that alendronate monotherapy negatively affects the early phase of wound healing after tooth extraction in preclinical studies, suggesting that the bone resorption process after tooth extraction in animals treated with alendronate might impair the bone healing process of the extraction socket. In conclusion, alendronate administration restrains bone resorption, thereby delaying alveolar socket healing . Future studies should be conducted to validate these findings and to better understand the effects of alendronate therapy on oral tissues.

Indexed as

AlendronateBone Density Conservation AgentsTooth ExtractionTooth SocketWound HealingAnimalsAlendronateBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

PMID38747825
PMCPMC11376628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.