ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
Overbuilding techniques for thin buccal bone in immediate implant placement: an experimental study in dogs.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Membrane Fixation and Graft Persistence in Pre-Extraction Buccal Overbuilding: A Split-Mouth Histological Study in Dogs.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Guided Alveolar Ridge Preservation (G-ARP) Using a Cortical Lamina: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Cetylpyridinium chloride and platinum nanoparticles effects in dogs with Porphyromonas gulae-infected periodontal disease.Veterinary research communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTooth extraction often leads to remodeling and shrinkage of the alveolar crest, particularly on the buccal side. This study aimed to assess the impact of grafting procedures on augmenting a thin buccal alveolar bone following tooth extraction and immediate implant placement.
methodsThe third mandibular premolar was bilaterally extracted in dogs, and implants were immediately placed into the distal sockets. At the test sites, the buccal bone wall was augmented with a xenograft, while both test and control sites were covered with a collagen membrane. After three months, biopsies were collected for histological analysis.
resultsMarginal bone loss averaged 3.0 ± 1.3 mm at control sites and 1.9 ± 0.8 mm at test sites (p = 0.084). At the test site, new bone formation extended from the buccal bone surface through the graft material, incorporating the granules and occasionally reaching the outermost areas, especially in the coronal regions. However, most of the outer regions of the biomaterial lacked newly formed bone.
conclusionThe study indicates that neither the use of a xenograft covered by a collagen membrane nor the application of a collagen membrane alone effectively preserved the buccal bone wall after tooth extraction and immediate implant placement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40214843What 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.