SynthesisClinical oral investigations2025
The clinical effect of bone perforations in periodontal regeneration and alveolar socket preservation: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative and decortication: A retrospective analysis of 1-year clinical and radiographic outcomes.Journal of periodontology · 2026Article
- Synergistic application of concentrated growth factor and bone perforation technique in bisphosphonate-related-osteonecrosis of the jaw.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- What is the role of Intramarrow penetration in managing intrabony defects-A Systematic Review.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Review
- Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Local Bone Grafting Combined with Implant Restoration in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Partial Edentulism.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Article
- Synthetic Biomaterials for Alveolar Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- In Vitro Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Resorbable Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe present systematic review aimed to evaluate if cortical bone perforation is effective in enhancing periodontal surgery and guided bone regeneration (GBR) in humans. MATERIALS AND
methodsElectronic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane CENTRAL up to October 31st, 2023. Grey literature was also searched. Prospective controlled studies were included. Two PICO questions were created; one focusing on the effect of bone perforation in the treatment of peridodontal intrabony defects (primary outcome probing depth (PD)) and one focusing on the effect of bone perforation in guided bone regeneration (primary outcome: histologic and histomorphometric data). The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool for cohort studies. Pairwise meta-analysis was undertaken when possible, to estimate the overall effect for the outcomes investigated.
resultsThe search on databases yielded a total of 653 articles. After screening, five RCTs and one non-randomized study were included. A meta-analysis was performed for the first PICO. PD was evaluated in 4 articles and no significant difference was found between the perforation vs. no perforation groups (0.11 mm (95% CI [-0.14 to 0.37 mm], P = 0.38). Additionally, radiographic defect depth (mean difference 0.77 mm, 95% CI [0.24 to 1.30 mm], P = 0.004) and distance between cemento-enamel junction and bone defect (standardized mean difference 0.98 mm, 95% CI [0.47 to 1.50 mm], P = 0.0002) resulted improved in the cortical bone perforation group.
conclusionThe evidence supporting a positive effect of using cortical perforations is very poor. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to determine whether decortication brings meaningful advantages. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study is focused on clinical studies and, using a rigorous study selection and a meta-analytic approach suggests that the apparent positive effect of bone decortication on the regeneration process still requires to be confirmed by more solid evidence.
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.