ArticleJournal of periodontology2025
In vivo experimental study comparing alveolar ridge preservation versus guided bone regeneration after unassisted socket healing at intact and damaged sites in narrow alveolar ridges.
Article in Journal of periodontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of the Buccal Dehiscence Morphotype on the Regenerative Strategy in Immediate Implant Placement.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Clinical and Histological Outcomes of Autologous Dentin Matrix in Post-Extraction Alveolar Healing: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- In vivo experimental study comparing alveolar ridge preservation versus guided bone regeneration after unassisted socket healing at intact and damaged sites in narrow alveolar ridges.Journal of periodontology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare bone regeneration and dimensional alteration of alveolar ridge at intact and damaged extraction sockets after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and implant placement versus unassisted socket healing followed by guided bone regeneration (GBR) with simultaneous implant placement.
methodsIn 6 beagle dogs, 3 types of extraction sockets in the mandible were created: (1) intact sockets, (2) 1-wall defect sockets and (3) 2-wall defect sockets. The sockets were allocated to undergo either (1) ARP and implant placement 8 weeks later (ARP group) or (2) GBR with simultaneous implant placement after 8 weeks of unassisted socket healing (GBR group). After an additional healing period of 8 weeks, bone regeneration and dimensional changes were evaluated radiographically and histologically.
resultsGBR showed superior bone formation and greater bone gains compared to ARP, regardless of the initial extraction-socket configuration. Although ARP maintained the preexisting alveolar ridge dimensions, peri-implant bone defects were still detected at 8 weeks of follow-up. Histomorphometric analyses confirmed that GBR increased dimensions of the alveolar ridge compared to baseline, and the augmentation and bone regeneration were greater with GBR than with ARP.
conclusionEarly implant placement with ARP can mitigate alveolar ridge changes in the narrow alveolar ridge. However, early implant placement with simultaneous GBR creates the conditions for enhanced bone regeneration around the implant and greater ridge augmentation compared to ARP, irrespective of the extraction-socket configuration.
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.