ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2025
Guided bone regeneration improves defect fill and reconstructive outcomes in 3-wall peri-implantitis defects.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of implant surface modifications on long-term outcome of surgical peri-implantitis treatment: a systematic review.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
designThis multi-center, randomized clinical trial compared the long-term outcomes of guided bone regeneration (GBR) with open flap debridement (OFD) in treating peri-implantitis-related bony defects with ≥3 osseous walls over 36 months. The study aimed to evaluate the healing potential of GBR using a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) graft and native bilayer collagen membrane (NBCM) compared to OFD without the use of graft materials. CASE SELECTION: Sixty-six individuals diagnosed with peri-implantitis were randomly assigned to either GBR (34 patients) or OFD (32 patients). The OFD group served as the control, where inflamed tissue was removed and the implant surface decontaminated using 3% hydrogen peroxide, but no bone graft was placed. The GBR group received DBBM and NBCM for defect reconstruction. Radiographic defect fill (RDF), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration (SUP), mucosal recession (MREC), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed over the study duration. Post-surgical care included azithromycin, ibuprofen, and chlorhexidine rinses. STUDY TIMELINE: The study involved baseline assessments, surgical interventions, and follow-ups at 6, 12, and 36 months. Supportive peri-implant therapy was provided every 3 months during the additional 24-month follow-up. DATA ANALYSIS: Primary outcome was RDF at 36 months. Secondary outcomes included PPD, BOP, SUP, MREC, and PROs. Descriptive statistics and ANCOVA models were used for analysis.
resultsAt 36 months, GBR resulted in a mean RDF of 2.13 ± 1.26 mm, compared to 1.64 ± 1.54 mm with OFD (p = .18). No significant differences were found in PPD, BOP, SUP, REC, or PROs between the groups. Treatment success (defined as no additional bone loss, PPD ≤ 5 mm, no BOP, and no SUP) was achieved in 46.2% of GBR cases and 20% of OFD cases (p = 0.053).
conclusionsGBR provided improved short-term defect fill and higher treatment success compared to OFD, although the differences were not statistically significant. Both procedures maintained clinical parameters over 36 months, with similar patient satisfaction (PROs) observed for GBR and OFD. The adjunct use of DBBM and NBCM may offer clinical benefits for peri-implantitis cases with specific bony defect morphology.
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.