Trial reportClinical oral investigations2025
Comparable efficacy of autogenous tooth-derived grafts and xenografts in post-extraction osseous defects: a split-mouth randomized trial.
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. 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.
- Platelet-rich fibrin combined with demineralized tooth matrix enhances periodontal regeneration following impacted third molar surgery: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Trial
- Trabecular bone remodelling following lateral window maxillary sinus augmentation with allograft versus xenograft: a retrospective one-year comparative fractal dimension analysis.BMC oral health · 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
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of autogenous tooth substitute graft (ATSG) prepared from autogenous third molars compared to xenograft in reducing osseous defects at the distal aspect of the second molars after impacted mandibular third molars removal. MATERIALS AND
methodsA randomized, double-blind, split-mouth clinical trial was conducted with 14 patients (aged 20-30 years) with bilateral mesioangular or horizontal impacted mandibular third molars. Following extraction, one socket received autogenous tooth-derived graft material (experimental site) prepared using a dentine grinder while the contralateral socket received xenogenic bone substitute (control site). Clinical parameters (probing depth, mobility, pain score, healing) and radiographic outcomes (mean gray value, fractal dimension, bone integration, dimensional changes) were evaluated pre-operatively and at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-operation.
resultsBoth groups showed similar clinical outcomes with no statistically significant differences in probing depth, mobility, pain scores, or healing. Radiographically, the mean gray value decreased by 4.62% in the autogenous group and 2.19% in the xenogeneic group at 6 months, though the differences were not statistically significant. Notably, by 6 months, total bone integration was observed in 64.29% of autogenous grafting sites compared to 57.14% of xenogeneic grafting sites. Fractal dimension analysis further suggested distinctive trabecular patterns between the two materials. Both materials demonstrated excellent biocompatibility with comparable dimensional stability; no significant differences were found in vertical or horizontal dimensional changes between the groups.
conclusionsAutogenous tooth-derived bone substitute demonstrates comparable clinical and radiographic outcomes to xenograft when used for alveolar ridge preservation following mandibular third molar extraction, suggesting it may be a viable alternative to conventional xenografts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: ATSG offers a chairside-prepared autogenous grafting option that can be completely produced in under twenty minutes, eliminating the costly and time-consuming laboratory processing needed for other materials while maintaining comparable clinical efficacy to the commercial xenografts.
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.