ArticleBMC oral health2024
Comparison of immediate vs. delayed guided tissue regeneration in Infrabony defect of second molars after adjacent third molar extraction: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe distal aspect of the second molar (d-M2) often exhibits infrabony defects due to the adjacent third molar. Although the defects can be treated by guided tissue regeneration (GTR) after removing the third molar, the optimal timing remains uncertain following third molar removal in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to compare delayed and immediate GTR treatments to assist in clinical decision-making.
methodsD-M2 infrabony defects with a minimum 1-year follow-up were collected and divided into three groups: Immediate GTR group, which underwent third molar extraction and received GTR simultaneously; Delayed GTR group, which underwent delayed GTR at least 3 months after third molar extraction; and Control group, which underwent only scaling and root planing during third molar extraction. The clinical and radiographic parameters related to the infrabony defect before GTR and post-surgery were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test or one-way ANOVA, followed by post-hoc Dunn's test or the Bonferroni test for pairwise comparisons.
resultsA total of 109 d-M2 infrabony defects were assessed. No significant differences were found between the two GTR groups, although both of them showed significant reductions in infrabony defect depth: the immediate GTR group (2.77 ± 1.97 mm vs. 0.68 ± 1.03 mm, p < 0.001) and the delayed GTR group (2.98 ± 1.08 mm vs. 0.68 ± 1.03 mm, p < 0.001) compared to the control group.
conclusionGTR can effectively improve d-M2 infrabony defects when the third molar is removed, whether simultaneously or delayed. Patients may experience less discomfort with immediate GTR treatment as it requires only one surgery.
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.