Trial reportJournal of clinical periodontology2025
The Periodontal Benefits of Alveolar Ridge Augmentation With Xenograft Following Third Molar Extraction: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Trial report 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Periodontal Benefits of Alveolar Ridge Augmentation With Xenograft Following Third Molar Extraction: A Randomised Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Trial
- Wisdom in healing: assessing the impact of DBBM-C on periodontal recovery after third molar extraction.Evidence-based 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 evaluate the effect of deproteinised bovine bone mineral with collagen (DBBM-C) grafting on periodontal healing at the distal aspect of the second molar (D2M) during adjacent third molar extraction. MATERIAL AND
methodsForty-two sites in 28 patients were randomly allocated into two groups. The test group (18 sites) received DBBM-C grafting during extraction, whereas the control group (24 sites) received extraction alone. The patients were reviewed 6 months postoperatively, and the D2M and extraction sites were evaluated by both linear and volumetric cone beam computed tomography measurements.
resultsNine patients dropped out (14 sites) and two patients were excluded (4 sites), leaving a total of 17 patients (24 sites) who were reviewed after 6 months. Both groups showed significant healing when examining the linear measurements (except at the disto-lingual aspect of the second molar) and the defined volumes of interest. There were, however, no significant differences between the groups in the linear or volumetric outcome analyses.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of the study, the use of DBBM-C during third molar extraction did not improve periodontal healing at the D2M. This trial was registered in April 2020 in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry under code ACTRN12620000497909 (https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12620000497909).
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.