ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2025
Socket preservation utilizing polymeric bioresorbable membranes: a preclinical model.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe preservation of the alveolar ridge following tooth extraction is crucial to prevent atrophy and maintain structural integrity, facilitating future dental rehabilitations. This study compared the use of two different polymeric, resorbable membranes: polylactic acid (PLA), and 5% polylactic acid + 95% polycaprolactone (PLA/PCL), relative to unassisted socket healing (negative control). MATERIAL AND
methodsA preclinical model involving healthy, skeletally mature beagles (n=7) were used in this study. Surface topography and thermal degradation of the membranes were assessed, followed by in vivo evaluation of socket preservation in extracted maxillary premolars. Histomorphometric analysis was employed to measure bone formation and total socket area. Data was analyzed through linear mixed models with fixed factor of treatment following a post-hoc comparison by the Tukey test. Ranked data of residual membrane presence and inflammatory infiltrate were analyzed through Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test. All analyses were conducted with statistical significance set at p-value ≤ 0.05.
resultsSurface topography depicted a distinctive fibrous network structure for PLA membrane relative to PLA/PCL which exhibited a more porous architecture. Thermal degradation behavior/profile, observed through TGA and DSC, for both membranes was similar. Histomorphometric analysis of bone formation within the induced socket yielded 36.1 ±7.7%, 35.6 ±7.2% and 32.8 ±7.7% for control, PLA and PLA/PCL groups, respectively, with no statistically significant differences between groups (p = 0.796). Analysis of total socket area (mean ± 95% confidence intervals) yielded significantly higher values for experimental groups, PLA (8.95 ± 1.7 mm2) and PLA/PCL (8.8 ± 1.76 mm2), relative to control (6.7 ± 1.8 mm2) (p = 0.041). Residual membrane, along with mild inflammatory infiltrate was observed after the healing period irrespective of membrane type utilized.
conclusionsGuided bone regeneration (GBR) with PLA and PLA/PCL membranes did not yield higher bone formation within the socket relative to the control group. However, an improvement in the preservation of the socket's architecture was observed.
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.