ArticleDentistry journal2024
3D-Printable Biopolymers for Socket Preservation Technique: Soft Tissues Response: A Pilot Randomised Clinical Study.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multifunctional effects of Zizyphus mauritiana leaf extract on oral pathogens and wound healing: an integrative in vitro and in vivo study.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Article
- Clinical Evidence on Resorbable Calcium Phosphate Biomaterials for Alveolar Bone Regeneration: A Scoping Review Focusing on Brushite, Monetite, and Tricalcium Phosphates.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Synthetic Biomaterials for Alveolar Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Effectiveness and Complication Rate of Resorbable Biopolymers in Oral Surgery: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
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
backgroundThe aim of the present parallel clinical study is to evaluate the efficacy of 3D-printed biopolymers compounded with osteoconductive material (beta-tricalcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite) for soft tissue closure after tooth extraction. MATERIALS AND
methodsthis study followed the CONSORT reporting guidelines; 39 patients were treated with socket preservation using 3D-printed biopolymers and randomly divided into 3 groups (Test 1, Test 2, and Control). All cases were treated without flap elevation, careful cleaning and debridement of the sites, and then randomly sealed as follows: In T1, with a 3D-printed disk of poli-D-lactic acid with 10% of hydroxyapatite; in T2, using a 3D-printed disk of poli-ε caprolactone with 20% of β-tricalcium phosphate; and in T3, the socket was left open to heal. At baseline (extraction time) and 6 weeks after extraction, the rate of exposure was evaluated and stratified according to the site (anterior, posterior).
resultsNo dropouts were observed during the 6 weeks follow-up. All sites underwent uneventful healing with no complications. For posterior teeth, Test 1 and Test 2 showed full healing of the soft tissues with a reduction of the exposed area from 46.5 ± 8.25 mm
conclusionsBoth materials used in this study showed evidence to achieve the purpose. Ethical Guidelines: written informed consent was obtained from the participants of the study, as requested by the Ethics Committee for Health Research Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Trisakti, with the following number: 641/S3/KEPK/FKG/5/2023.
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.