SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2024
Peri-implant bone regeneration in pigs.
Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preclinical evaluation of patient-specific 3D-printed PDLLA/SrHAp implants in a minipig segmental mandibular defect model.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- Dysregulation of the Immune System in Advanced Periimplantitis: Systemic Implications and Inflammatory Mechanisms-A Hematological and Immunological Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo review the current literature to answer the focused question: in the experimental pig model (population), which types of peri-implant bone defects (exposure) have been used evaluate different modes of therapy and what is their capacity for spontaneous healing and regeneration (outcome)?
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, electronic databases were searched for studies reporting peri-implant bone defects in the maxillae or mandibles of pigs. Those studies which reported a control group of untreated defects with assessment of spontaneous regeneration [new bone area (BA)] and/or re-osseointegration [new bone-to-implant contact (BIC)] via quantitative radiography or histomorphometry were included in a random effects meta-analysis for the outcomes BA and BIC.
resultsOverall, 21 studies, mostly performed in the mandibles of minipigs, were included. Most studies reported 'acute' intrabony (circumferential and/or dehiscence; n = 12) or supra-alveolar defects (horizontal; n = 4). Five studies attempted to induce 'chronic' peri-implantitis lesions using ligatures with conflicting results. Meta-analyses revealed pooled estimates (with 95% confidence intervals) of 48.07% BIC (30.14-66%) and 64.31% BA (42.71-85.91%) in intrabony defects, and 52.09% BIC (41.83-62.35%) and 28.62% BA (12.97-44.28%) in supra-alveolar defects. Heterogeneity in the meta-analysis was high (I
conclusionCurrent evidence for peri-implant bone regeneration in pigs is mainly based on acute intrabony defects, which demonstrate a high capacity for spontaneous regeneration and re-osseointegration. The evidence for chronic peri-implantitis is limited and does not clearly indicate a spontaneous progression of the disease in this animal model.
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.