Trial reportJournal of clinical periodontology2025
Ridge Augmentation Using a Self-Retaining Block Bone Material in Damaged Extraction Sockets: A Multi-Centre Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Journal of clinical periodontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo compare the dimensional stability of a self-retaining synthetic block bone (srBB) and synthetic bone particles (SBP) for alveolar ridge augmentation (ARA) in damaged extraction sockets. MATERIALS AND
methodsARA was randomly performed in two centres on 57 participants presenting damaged extraction socket in a non-molar tooth: (i) srBB and collagen membrane (srBB group, n = 29) or (ii) SBP and collagen membrane (SBP group, n = 28). Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed immediately after ARP (baseline, T0) and at 6 months (T1). T0 and T1 CBCTs were superimposed, and horizontal widths (H0-H5), vertical heights and volume changes were assessed using t-test.
resultsDue to wound dehiscence, srBB was removed in 10 patients. The change in horizontal width at the most coronal level (H0) was significantly lower for srBB compared to SBP (srBB: 0.8 ± 1.0 mm; SBP: 1.9 ± 2.2 mm, p < 0.05). Significantly less volume decrease was seen at the bucco-coronal level for srBB (srBB: 3.2 ± 0.6 mm
conclusionCompared to synthetic bone particles, synthetic bone blocks have the potential to more effectively augment and maintain the coronal horizontal dimension and width of damaged extraction sockets for up to 6 months. However, this advantage is offset by their relatively high rates of early wound dehiscence.
trial registrationKorean Clinical Research information service (CRIS) (KCT0005462).
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.