Trial reportClinical oral implants research2025
Particulate Versus Cross-Linked Collagenated Bone Substitutes for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Particulate Versus Cross-Linked Collagenated Bone Substitutes for Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical oral implants research · 2025Trial
- Collagen Membrane Fixation Technique Affects Its Space Maintenance Capacity After Flap Closure: An Ex Vivo Analysis.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
- Autologous guided bone regeneration: a comprehensive narrative review.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- Recent Advances in Regenerative Therapies in Periodontology.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
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
Abstract
aimTo compare the dimensional outcomes of horizontal augmentation with the retentive-flap technique using particulate and cross-linked collagenated bone substitutes. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis two-centre, two-arm randomized clinical trial investigated 69 subjects: 34 in the particulate group and 35 in the collagenated group. Patients were randomly assigned to receive single implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) using either particulate deproteinized porcine bone material (DPBM) or cross-linked collagenated DPBM. Quantitative evaluations were conducted for horizontal width, augmented area, and augmented volume in both hard and soft tissue dimensions.
resultsImmediately after surgery, the collagenated group exhibited higher hard tissue dimensions in terms of horizontal width and augmented area. After 4 months, the difference between the two groups decreased to a non-significant level, mainly attributable to the high shrinkage rate of the collagenated group (32.32 [20.79] %) compared to the particulate group (19.90 [14.33] %). No significant difference was observed regarding the soft tissue contour analyses between the two groups after 4 months.
conclusionsThere were no significant differences between cross-linked collagenated and particulated DPBMs regarding the dimensional outcomes of horizontal augmentation with the retentive-flap technique. The high resorption rate of the collagenated bone substitute negates its initial superiority in both radiographic and soft tissue dimensions (no. KCT0005348).
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.