Trial reportJournal of periodontology2026
Healing following ridge preservation using demineralized allograft particles or fibers alone, and combined with xenograft.
Trial report in Journal of periodontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05400213 (Randomized Controlled Trial of Wound Healing Following Tooth Extraction and Ridge Preservation Using Decalcified Freeze-dried Bone Allograft), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Randomized Controlled Trial of Wound Healing Following Tooth Extraction and Ridge Preservation Using Decalcified Freeze-dried Bone Allograft (DFDBA) Alone in Particulate Fiber Form and in Combination With Xenograft
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Alveolar ridge preservation versus unassisted socket healing following tooth extraction: a systematic review of controlled clinical studies and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Partially demineralized allogeneic cancellous bone plug versus deproteinized bovine bone mineral for guided bone regeneration: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Healing following ridge preservation using demineralized allograft particles or fibers alone, and combined with xenograft.Journal of periodontology · 2026Trial
- Comparative Analysis of Bone Remodeling Dynamics and Bone Vitality Following Standard Bone Augmentation Procedures: A Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Definite Implant Position as Novel Readout for Effectiveness of Ridge Preservation Indicates to Beneficial Effect of Combined Treatment with Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) and Xenogenic Biomaterial in Bone Regeneration.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAllografts and xenografts are viable options for alveolar ridge preservation. This study evaluated histologic wound healing when using demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) alone, in fiber or particulate form, and in combination with xenograft. Alveolar dimensional changes were also evaluated.
methodsThis four-arm, parallel, randomized controlled trial included 120 patients with a nonmolar tooth receiving extraction and ridge preservation who were blindly randomized into one of four groups: DFDBA particulate alone (DCP), DFDBA fibers alone (DCF), xenograft combined with DCP (DPX), and xenograft combined with DCF (DFX). After 18-20 weeks of healing, bone cores were collected for histologic analysis of vital bone, residual allograft, residual xenograft, and connective tissue. Ridge dimensional changes were evaluated with standardized measuring stents.
resultsThere was no difference in mean vital bone formation between DCP (37.33%) and DCF (40.76%) or between DPX (24.46%) or DFX (23.85%), but more vital bone was present when DFDBA in either form was used alone (DCF, DCP) compared to combining with xenograft (DFX, DPX). Significantly less residual allograft was found in DCF (3.57%) compared to DCP (16.5%). Similarly, when combined with xenograft, there was less residual allograft with DFDBA fibers (DFX = 2.19%) than with particles (DPX = 9.88%). No significant differences in alveolar ridge dimensional change were noted between the groups.
conclusionDFDBA fibers resulted in less residual allograft compared to DFDBA particulate. Allograft-alone groups had more vital bone than groups with xenograft, but there was no difference between fiber allograft and particulate allograft alone. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05400213 PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Placing a bone graft in the socket after tooth extraction can decrease bone loss during healing in preparation for a dental implant. This study collected histologic wound healing data on human bone graft materials in a fiber and particle form alone and in combination with a cow-derived (bovine) bone graft material. One hundred twenty patients who needed a tooth extracted enrolled in the study, and one of the four bone graft materials was placed in the site. After 18-20 weeks of healing, patients returned for placement of a dental implant. At this time, a bone sample was collected for microscopic examination. Measurements of the bone dimensions at the site were also done. The fiber bone graft material resorbed more rapidly relative to the particulate form, but there was no difference in new bone formed between the fibers and particles. The human bone grafts in either fiber or particle form used alone also formed more new bone than when they were mixed with the bovine bone graft. Clinically, the bone dimensions did not show significant differences between the four groups.
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.