ArticleBMC oral health2025
Histomorphometric and immunohistochemical assessment of treated dentin matrix delivered by platelet-rich fibrin for socket preservation in rabbit model.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to test treated dentine matrix (TDM) with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) for socket preservation, following tooth extraction compared to synthetic grafting material Nanobone (NB) with PRF. MATERIALS AND
methodsStudy was conducted on New Zealand rabbits (n = 40). Bilateral first lower premolar extraction was performed, with one side left empty and the other side filled with (PRF) in one group (n = 20). In the other group (n = 20), one side was filled with TDM/PRF while the other side was filled with NB/ PRF. After one and three months, rabbits were euthanized, and the socket area was examined using haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and Goldner Masson trichrome stains. One-way ANOVA and post-hoc tests were used for histomorphometric analysis. Immunohistochemical analysis of osteopontin was carried out.
resultsHistological analysis of NB/PRF and TDM/PRF groups showed a higher level of new bone formation in comparison to the control and PRF groups. Histomorphometric analysis revealed a significant increase in new bone formation in the TDM/PRF group compared to the NB/PRF group after one and three months (p = 0.042 and p < 0.001), respectively. There were no significant differences in the percentages of unmineralized bone between the TDM/PRF and NB/PRF groups at both intervals (p = 0.375 and 0.352, respectively). Regarding immunohistochemistry, NB/PRF showed the highest osteopontin immune expression followed by TDM/PRF. No significant differences were detected between both groups at both intervals (p = 0.234 & 0.607 respectively).
conclusionsTDM/PRF showed the ability to form new bone in extraction sockets in rabbits. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: TDM/PRF can be used as an alveolar bone grafting material for socket preservation.
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.