ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Evaluation of Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes in the Use of Bone Substitutes in Periapical Surgery and Periodontal Regeneration.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
Background: Periapical surgery and periodontal regeneration are essential dental procedures aimed at restoring the integrity of the tooth and surrounding tissues. Bone substitutes, including synthetic materials, xenografts, allografts, and autografts, play a pivotal role in enhancing healing and promoting tissue regeneration. This study evaluates the clinical and radiographic outcomes associated with the use of these bone substitutes. Methods: The study involved 60 patients aged 18-60 years who were randomly assigned to three groups: synthetic bone substitute, autograft, and xenograft (20 patients each). Clinical outcomes such as Periodontal Probing Depth (PPD), Clinical Attachment Level (CAL), and pain scores were evaluated at baseline, 6, and 12 months post-surgery. Radiographic outcomes included bone defect fill, bone density, and graft resorption, assessed using digital radiographs and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Results: The autograft group demonstrated the highest clinical and radiographic outcomes, showing superior improvements in PPD, CAL, bone defect fill, and bone density at both 6 and 12 months. The synthetic bone substitute group showed positive results, though slightly less favorable than autografts. The xenograft group exhibited moderate improvements but experienced higher graft resorption, especially at 12 months. Conclusion: Autografts are the most effective bone substitute for promoting bone regeneration and periodontal healing. Synthetic bone substitutes offer fewer complications but show somewhat slower bone regeneration. Xenografts, though effective, may have lower long-term efficacy due to higher resorption rates.
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.