ArticleJournal of clinical periodontology2025
Efficacy of Injectable Bone Fillers for Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Histomorphometrical Analysis.
Article 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.
- The efficacy of injectable bone fillers for alveolar ridge preservation: a microcomputed tomographic analysis.International journal of implant dentistry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo assess the efficacy of injectable bone fillers for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe mandibular premolars (P2, P3, P4) were bilaterally assigned to ARP in a total of n = 9 beagle dogs. Each P was decapitated and hemisected under preservation of the mesial (i.e., devitalization and filling with calcium hydroxide) and removal of the distal root. The resulting 6 extraction sockets were randomly allocated to a total of four injectable test materials (i.e., bovine bone particles + porcine collagen, lyophilized materials reconstituted with either blood or saline [T1, T2, T4]; or ready-to-use wet material [T3]) and one control material (collagenated bovine bone mineral) (C) as well as one negative control group (N). Primary wound closure was ensured in all test and C groups. At 12 weeks, dissected blocks were prepared for histomorphometrical analyses. Buccal bone height (BBH) was defined as a primary outcome. Lingual bone height (LBH), buccal and lingual bone wall width (BBW and LBW 1, 3 and 5 mm infracrestally), surface area of bone and particles, fibrous tissues, and bone marrows were defined as secondary outcomes. Between-group comparisons were assessed using ANOVA and Mann-Whitney tests.
resultsAfter 12 weeks, all groups were associated with similar BBH values (BBH: 14.1, 14.0, 13.7, 13.8, 14.3 and 114.2 mm in the T1, T2, T3, T4, C and N groups, respectively; p > 0.05 for all between-group comparisons). The BBW and LBW measurements were comparable among the groups. ARP sites showed a trend towards higher area measurements of bone and particle surfaces compared with the N group (11.5, 11.6, 13.1, 12.5, 9.1 mm
conclusionsWithin its limitations, the present study has pointed to the similar efficacy of injectable bone fillers for ARP compared with the particulated bone substitute and negative control.
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.