ArticlePloS one2025
Introduction of "MAPS" wound healing index and its correlation with guided bone regeneration outcome.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Flap perfusion of superficial split flap design for guided bone regeneration: A case report with ultrasonography.Clinical advances in periodontics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
methodsThe MAPS score was introduced to evaluate the bioMechanical, Aesthetic/Anatomical, Pathophysiologic, and Subject-related parameters for the healing assessment of 20 patients who underwent GBR in the posterior mandible retrospectively. Intraoral photography was taken at 3-, 10-, 21 days, and 5 months, resulting in 80 follow-up visits. Two independent examiners evaluated the photos giving scores for each timepoint and tested against horizontal bone gain (CBCT) for predictability.
resultsCohen's Kappa values showed high intra- and inter-examiner agreement. Pearson's correlation showed an inverse correlation between baseline bone width and bone changes at a 3 mm level (R2 = 0.23). The higher M, A, and P values at any time point were associated with higher bone gain. The 10-day MAPS score turns out the most predictive of bone gain (RMSE 1.32, R2 0.75). In addition, increasing the average P score by 1 point at 10 days is associated with an increase in bone gain of 1.23 (p=.057).
conclusionThe MAPS score improves consistently over the 5-month healing period. However, no statistically significant difference is observed between the scores at 21 days and 5 months, reflecting the clinical healing pattern for GBR. The overall MAPS score correlated with bone changes after GBR procedures, indicating its potential for estimating hard tissue regenerative outcomes.
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.