ArticleFrontiers in oral health2025
Effect of two deproteinized bone graft materials for socket preservation: a clinical and histological study.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative In Vitro Evaluation and Osteogenic Mechanisms of Representative Bone Graft Substitutes: Bioactive Glass, Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate, and Deproteinized Bovine Bone.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- 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
- Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Socket Preservation Technique Using Allogeneic and Xenogeneic Materials: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Biomaterial strategies for precision regeneration of the tooth extraction socket: integrating site phenotype, pathological microenvironment, and healing sequence.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate dimensional changes and new bone formation using two deproteinized bovine bone minerals, NuOss and Bio-Oss, in socket preservation. Materials and methods: Eighteen patients (6 males, 12 females; aged 23-45 years) requiring posterior tooth extraction were enrolled. Eighteen extraction sockets were augmented with either NuOss or Bio-Oss and covered with a collagen membrane. After six months, Cone Beam Cephalometry (CBCT) assessed dimensional changes in buccolingual width and buccal bone thickness. Bone core biopsies were obtained during implant placement and decalcified for histomorphologic examination. Statistical analysis compared dimensional changes and histomorphometric parameters between groups. Results: All experimental sites healed uneventfully, with complete soft tissue healing within four weeks and successful implant placement. CBCT scans showed comparable, non-significant dimensional reductions. Histomorphologic examination revealed lamellar cortical bone and osteoid trabeculae with partial to optimal integration. NuOss demonstrated significantly higher new bone formation (52.5 ± 2.5%) compared to Bio-Oss (37.5 ± 2.5%; Conclusion: Both NuOss and Bio-Oss showed positive bone regeneration effects. However, NuOss demonstrated more favorable biocompatibility, with less inflammation and improved bone integration than Bio-Oss.
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.