Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40199760›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2025

Hard and soft tissue contour changes following simultaneous guided bone regeneration at single peri-implant dehiscence defects using either resorbable or non-resorbable membranes: a 6-month secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Franz J Strauss, David Schneider, Ronald E Jung, Riccardo Kraus, Daniel S Thoma, Nadja Naenni

Erratum issuedAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Extended PRF: Impact of Heat on Gene Expression in Gingival Fibroblasts.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Franz J StraussClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
David SchneiderClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Ronald E JungClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Riccardo KrausClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Daniel S ThomaClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Nadja NaenniClinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. nadja.naenni@zzm.uzh.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare radiographic and profilometric outcomes 6 months after simultaneous lateral guided bone regeneration (GBR) at single peri-implant dehiscence defects in the anterior region using either resorbable or non-resorbable membranes. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn 27 patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior region (second premolar to second premolar in the maxilla) a dental implant was placed. Following implant placement GBR was performed at the buccal aspect using randomly either a resorbable collagen membrane (RES) or a non-resorbable titanium-reinforced ePTFE membrane (N-RES). Radiographic (cone-beam computed tomography; CBCT) measurements were performed to assess the buccal bone thickness immediately after the implant placement with simultaneous GBR (baseline) and 6 months later. Buccal soft tissue thickness was assessed by superimposing surface scans taken at baseline and again 6 months later.

resultsA total of 25 datasets could be assessed for the bone dimensions (n = 12, RES; n = 13, N-RES) and 14 datasets for profilometric changes (n = 7, RES; n = 7, N-RES). Group RES showed a significant mean reduction in buccal bone between baseline and 6 months of 0.8 ± 0.4 mm (p = 0.004). The respective mean reduction for group N-RES amounted to 0.1 ± 0.4 mm (p = 0.581). When comparing the buccal bone changes between both group over time, group RES exhibited greater reduction in comparison to group N-RES (intergroup p = 0.017). Profilometric analyses showed a non-significant trend towards soft tissue gain in group RES 0.6 ± 0.7 mm (p = 0.125). Conversely, N-RES group revealed stability, with a mean change of 0.0 ± 0.3 mm (p = 1.000).

conclusionsGBR using non-resorbable membranes seems to provide greater dimensional stability of augmented bone at 6 months re-entry and before implant loading compared to resorbable membranes. The lack of differences in the profilometric outcomes and contour changes may be explained by a partial compensation through an increase in soft tissue thickness with resorbable membranes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: GBR using non-resorbable membranes may offer greater dimensional stability of augmented bone compared to resorbable membranes. However, these potential benefits may be offset by a compensatory increase in soft tissue thickness when using resorbable membranes.

Indexed as

Bone RegenerationDental Implantation, EndosseousDental Implants, Single-ToothGuided Tissue Regeneration, PeriodontalMembranes, ArtificialSurgical Wound DehiscenceAbsorbable ImplantsAdultAgedCollagenCone-Beam Computed TomographyFemaleHumansMaleMaxillaMiddle AgedCollagenMembranes, ArtificialPolytetrafluoroethyleneAlveolar ridge augmentationBone generationBone regenerationDental implants

Identifiers

PMID40199760
PMCPMC11978683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.