ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
Clinical outcomes of conservative bone trocar versus conventional open technique in pediatric Iliac crest harvesting for alveolar bone grafting.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the postoperative clinical outcomes between the conservative bone trocar and open conventional techniques for iliac crest bone harvesting for alveolar bone grafting.
methodsThe study included 20 unilateral cleft patients aged between 8 and 11 years, just before canine eruption, who suffered from oro-nasal communication, and were divided into two groups. Group A: ten patients using the open technique with a 4 cm incision at the anterior superior iliac crest for harvesting bone chips. Group B: ten patients using a conservative technique with a 1 cm incision at the anterior superior iliac crest using a special bone trocar extractor and curette. Postoperative evaluation included the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain assessment to compare the level of pain postoperatively. Also Vancouver scale was used for scar wound evaluation through clinical examination of wound size and concerning tissue vascularity, pigmentation, pliability, and height.
resultsThere were no postoperative complications observed, including infection, dehiscence, and graft resorption in both groups. Two weeks postoperative: Group A reported significantly higher pain (7.8 ± 0.79) compared to Group B (3.6 ± 0.97) & p < 0.001, indicating statistically significant lower pain levels in Group B. Regarding the Vancouver Scar Scale, two weeks postoperative: Group A had significantly higher scar severity (9.1 ± 0.88) compared to Group B (3.0 ± 0.82) and p < 0.001, suggesting better scar satisfaction in Group B. One month postoperatively, Group B over time confirmed better scar appearance.
conclusionAutogenous iliac crest using a conservative technique with a bone trocar is significantly more beneficial, less painful, and provides better wound scar healing satisfaction than the standard open approach in terms of VAS pain scale and Vancouver scar scale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41016933What 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.