ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Letter to the editor in response to "Microbial colonization in the partially exposed nonabsorbable membrane during alveolar ridge preservation" (Braz et al., clinical oral Investigations, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05763-7.).
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis letter addresses the recent study by Braz et al. published in Clinical Oral Investigations in 2024 ( https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05763-7 ), which reported that intentionally exposed d-PTFE membranes modulate microbial colonization in alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) sites, creating a more homogeneous and anaerobic community on both the inner and outer surfaces of the membrane. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe argue that the study's methodology may have skewed the results, particularly the inclusion of both intact and damaged extraction sockets (with loss of the buccal wall) and the absence of bone grafting.
resultsThe absence of bone graft might have contributed to membrane dislodgement and increased microbial contamination rather than the membrane's inherent properties.
conclusionThis critique is significant because it challenges the conclusion that the d-PTFE membrane itself is responsible for microbial colonization, highlighting the need to consider extrinsic factors and study design limitations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our discussion aims to enhance the understanding of microbial dynamics in ARP procedures and emphasizes the need for caution when interpreting the study's findings, given the context of established clinical practices and existing evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39636487What 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.