Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Tooth shell versus bone shell technique for horizontal maxillary alveolar ridge augmentation.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06416605 (Tooth Shell Versus Bone Shell Technique For Horizontal Maxillary Alveolar Ridge Augmentation), which is not on this 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.
Tooth Shell Versus Bone Shell Technique For Horizontal Maxillary Alveolar Ridge Augmentation
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Dentine-derived barrier membrane versus extended platelet-rich fibrin for guided bone regeneration: a 2-year randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- In vitro evaluation of the effects of different bone grafts on the surface microhardness of NeoPUTTY and MTA Angelus.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was designed to evaluate the clinical and radiographical outcome of tooth shell for maxillary alveolar ridge augmentation as an alternative to traditional autogenous bone shell graft. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty eight patients with one or two maxillary extracted teeth (esthetic zone) in need for horizontal bone augmentation were divided into two groups (14 patients each). Group I (control group): bone augmentation was done by using bone shell technique (BST). Group II (study group): bone augmentation was done by using tooth shell technique (TST). Implant stability was evaluated at the time of implant placement, after 4 months (loading time), and 4 months after loading. Radiographic evaluation was made using Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans before grafting (T0), immediately (T1), and 6 months post grafting (T2).
resultsIn this study, 30 implants were inserted in the esthetic zone. All implants were successfully osseointegrated. No statistically significant difference was found between the studied groups as regards implant stability (P > 0.05) assessed baseline, 4 months after implant placement, and 4 months after loading. The radiographic evaluation demonstrated a statistically significant lower median amount of graft resorption at 1 mm, 5 mm, and 10 mm & total among the study than the control group (p = 0.001, 0.001, 0.04 & 0.001 respectively).
conclusionTST used for lateral ridge augmentation has excellent dimensional stability and the least amount of graft resorption.
trial registrationThis study was retrospectively registered on www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov with registration number (NCT06416605) on 16 /5 /2024.
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.