ArticleJournal of periodontal & implant science2025
Does defect configuration affect the outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation? An experimental
Article in Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2025. 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.
- A prospective clinical study of immediate implant placement in the maxillary esthetic zone.Journal of periodontal & implant science · 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
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the bone healing potential of 1-, 2-, and 3-wall defects following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) treatment, as well as to evaluate the efficacy of ARP as a treatment option for destructive sites.
methodsThree groups, characterized by 1-, 2-, and 3-wall defects, were randomly assigned to the maxillary second, third, and fourth premolars in each of 8 beagle dogs. Each defect was created at either the mesial or distal root site of the tooth, which was hemi-sectioned and extracted. The contralateral root was preserved to superimpose with the experimental site for histomorphometric analysis. For each site, either spontaneous healing (SH; control) or ARP (test intervention) was randomly applied. Each group was divided in half and underwent a healing period of either 4 or 12 weeks. The Mann-Whitney
resultsQualitative analysis revealed a higher percentage of new bone in the apical area compared to the coronal area, regardless of defect type and healing period. In quantitative analysis, the 3-wall defect exhibited a significantly higher percentage of mineralization in the ARP group after 12 weeks of healing (ARP: 61.73%±7.52%; SH: 48.84%±3.06%;
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, ARP treatment for compromised sockets appears to yield a higher percentage of mineralization compared to SH. Although the effectiveness of the remaining bony walls was limited, their presence appeared to improve the percentage of mineralization in ARP treatment.
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.