Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39755940›Full record

Trial reportMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2025

Comparative Analysis of Gelatin/Polylactic Acid and Commercial PLA Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Jing Wang, Wentian Chen, Min Huang, Zhitong Zhong, Pei Wang, Runfa Wu

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jing WangSchool of Stomatology, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Jiangxi Province Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine, Jiangxi Province Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Wentian ChenDepartment of Stomatology, Jiangxi Provincial People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Min HuangDepartment of Oral Implantology, The Affiliated Stomatology Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Jiangxi Province Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine, Jiangxi Province Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Zhitong ZhongSchool of Stomatology, Guangzhou Health Science College, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Pei WangDepartment of Key Laboratory, The Affiliated Stomatology Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Jiangxi Province Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine, Jiangxi Province Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Runfa WuDepartment of Oral Implantology, The Affiliated Stomatology Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Jiangxi Province Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine, Jiangxi Province Clinical Research Center for Oral Disease, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND This study included 32 patients with single missing teeth and alveolar bone defects and aimed to compare outcomes from guided bone regeneration with a gelatin/polylactic acid (GT/PLA) barrier membrane and a Guidor® bioresorbable matrix barrier dental membrane. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 32 participants were recruited in the clinical study, with single missing teeth and alveolar bone defects, requiring guided bone regeneration (32 missing teeth in total). They were randomly divided into the GT/PLA membrane group (experimental) and Guidor® membrane group (control) by the envelope method (n=16). Both membranes were used intraoperatively to cover the bone substitute material. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed immediately and at 6 months after surgery to assess the amount of bone resorption. In addition, the osteogenic efficacy was calculated. The soft tissue index (STI), wound healing, membrane exposure, and incidence of infection in the operative area were evaluated. RESULTS The implant survival rate was 100% in both groups. The average bone resorption was 148.54±107.42 mm³ in the experimental group and 185.25±85.31 mm³ in the control group (P=0.163); the osteogenic efficacy was 75% in the experimental group and 56% in the control group (P=0.458). Moreover, the parameters of STI, wound healing, membrane exposure, and incidence of infection in the operative area showed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS The GT/PLA barrier membrane yielded non-inferior clinical and imaging results to the GUIDOR® membrane, exhibiting good efficacy and biocompatibility in GBR.

Indexed as

Bone RegenerationGelatinMembranes, ArtificialPolyestersAbsorbable ImplantsAdultAlveolar Bone LossBone SubstitutesCone-Beam Computed TomographyFemaleGuided Tissue RegenerationGuided Tissue Regeneration, PeriodontalHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteogenesisBone SubstitutesGelatinMembranes, ArtificialPolyesterspoly(lactide)

Identifiers

PMID39755940
PMCPMC11715021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.