ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2024
Evaluation of flat ridge rehabilitation using an intraoral custom-made distraction device at four weeks versus eight weeks and its impact on dental implant efficacy: A comparative study.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate alveolar bone height enhancement using a custom-made distractor to evaluate its ability to support dental implants. Method: The left mandibular premolars of nine dogs were extracted, followed by alveoloplasty to simulate an atrophic ridge. The dogs were divided into three groups: groups I and II received distractors followed by dental implants, while group III received implants alone. Distractors remained in place for 4 weeks in group I and 8 weeks in group II for consolidation. Subsequently, the distractors were removed, and a titanium dental implant was immediately inserted during the same visit. In the third group, implants were placed in the same area as noted. The implant was left in position for 8 weeks, after which the left hemimandible underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and histological analysis, focusing on the region of interest (ROI) mesial and distal to the dental implant. Results: Densitometric analysis revealed notable osseointegration between the regenerated bone adjacent to the dental implant. Notably, there were significant differences in osseointegration between groups I and II. Moreover, osseointegration levels were similar between groups II and III, where no distraction device was employed. Histological findings showed the formation of new bone in the distraction gap, with more advanced maturation noted in the 8-week group. It is worth noting that the integration between bone and implants in the third group surpasses that of the distraction groups. Conclusion: Using the distraction device for only 4 weeks is acceptable to meet the criteria for implant placement. The small size of the distraction device reduces tissue reaction after surgery because it eliminates the necessity of complex surgeries that may require bone grafting. Density measurements and histological observations indicate that the distractor promotes the generation of enough bone for prosthetic rehabilitation with dental implants.
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.