Trial reportJournal of periodontology2025
Clinical outcomes of using operating microscope for alveolar ridge preservation: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical outcomes of using operating microscope for alveolar ridge preservation: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of periodontology · 2025Trial
- Review
- Microsurgical techniques in periodontics - A review.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- The Benefits of a Dental Operating Microscope for Tooth Extractions: A Case Report.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Volumetric changes associated with immediate implant placement and Bio-Oss collagen.Bioinformation · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of the operating microscope (OM) for extraction and alveolar ridge augmentation (ARP) is increasing due to enhanced magnification and illumination. The primary objective was to compare the wound healing and crestal bone quality after the use of OM and dental loupes (DL) for ARP.
methodsForty non-molar teeth with periapical lesions in need of extraction and ARP from 33 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups: DL (control) or OM (test). All procedures were performed by 1 surgeon and assessments done by masked examiners. ARP was performed with an allograft and a resorbable collagen membrane. The presence of granulomatous tissue remnants after debridement was recorded. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and ultrasound (US) scans were taken during the healing phase up to 16-week visits. Bone cores were retrieved from implant osteotomies for histologic analysis. Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) were assessed.
resultsAll patients completed all study visits except 1 who dropped out before the last visit. After socket debridement, the test group exhibited significantly fewer sites with tissue remnants (p = 0.01) and a better healing score at 2-week (p = 0.04) and 4-week (p = 0.01) time points. There were no significant differences in 12-week crestal bone healing by histology (p = 0.1), US (p = 0.85), and CBCT healing (p = 0.64) at 12 weeks, as well as PROMs (p > 0.1).
conclusionWithin the limitation of the study, the use of OM for ARP resulted in significantly fewer tissue remnants and favorable early visual wound healing. CBCT and US-derived-crestal bone quality did not show a difference between the 2 groups. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) by placing bone particulates in the extraction socket, covered by a wound dressing material, is commonly applied immediately after tooth extraction to reduce jawbone shrinkage in preparation for implant placement later. The jawbone healing varies, depending largely on the ability to remove the etiology, socket features, extent of surgical trauma, and wound stability. Healed jawbone with good quality is favorable for easiness of implant placement and could be related to maintenance of long-term implant health. The surgical microscope with high magnification (up to ∼25×) and co-axial illumination is ideal for assistance in the removal of granulomatous tissue that is believed to interfere with healing, performance of minimally invasive extraction, and stabilization of the wound with meticulous tissue management and fine sutures. This study compared the use of the surgical microscope to dental loupes for ARP in a randomized controlled design. The microscope-assisted ARP is associated with a significantly higher chance of removing granulomatous tissue, favorable early healing, and similar crestal bone quality. Removal of granulomatous tissue is significant for immediate implant placement. This study serves as a model for testing the benefits of the surgical microscope for encouraging early healing in more challenging intraoral surgical procedures.
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.