ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Covered Socket Residuum (CSR) in Former Third Molar Sockets Despite Platelet-Rich Fibrin: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Split-Mouth Clinical Study.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Jawbone Cavitations: Current Understanding and Conceptual Introduction of Covered Socket Residuum (CSR).Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Third molar extraction is a common oral surgical procedure that can be accompanied by challenges in wound healing and bone regeneration. Materials such as bone substitute materials (BSMs) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) are often used to support socket regeneration. This prospective randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial compared PRF application combined with BSM versus PRF alone in patients requiring bilateral third molar extraction. A total of 15 patients underwent standardized osteotomy procedures, with sockets filled either with PRF alone (control group) or with BSM + PRF on opposite sides (test group) under general anesthesia and with patients blinded to the treatment allocation. Postoperative pain and swelling were measured over 7 days using a visual analog scale and anatomical distance measurements, respectively. Bone regeneration was evaluated using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans after an average healing period of six months, with results showing no significant differences between groups in terms of postoperative pain or swelling (n = 12; 3 patients were lost to randomization). However, CBCT imaging revealed covered socket residuum (CSR)-non-mineralized areas within the socket-in the PRF only group, whereas the BSM + PRF group demonstrated more homogeneous and mineralized bone formation throughout the extraction sites (n = 8; 5 patients were lost to follow-up). These non-mineralized areas represent covered socket residuum within the extraction sockets, which poses a clinical risk of infection and may negatively affect the dental health of the adjacent second molar. Based on the presented findings, we recommend combining BSM with PRF to support bone regeneration and regulate the postoperative pain and swelling following third molar extraction. Nevertheless, further research is required to determine the most suitable BSM type in this regard.
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.