SynthesisOral diseases2026
Efficacy and Safety of Regenerative Periodontal Therapy on Recovery After Surgical Removal of Impacted Third Molars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Oral diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of regenerative periodontal therapy (RPT) in recovery after impacted third molar extraction.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from database inception to January 31, 2025. Pooled analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Effect estimates were reported as weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratio (OR) for categorical outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsThirty-two RCTs involving 1300 participants were included. Compared with conventional treatment, RPT significantly improved clinical outcomes, including greater clinical attachment level gain (WMD: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.13-2.25; p < 0.001), probing depth reduction (WMD: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.48-1.79; p = 0.001), and alveolar bone level gain (WMD: 1.31; 95% CI: 0.62-2.01; p < 0.001). The intervention demonstrated a comparable safety profile to the control group, with no statistically significant difference in adverse event risk (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.34-1.19; p = 0.154). Subgroup analyses revealed significant heterogeneity in efficacy and safety across different regenerative protocols.
conclusionCurrent evidence indicates that RPT enhances periodontal tissue regeneration after third molar extraction, leading to improved clinical outcomes without increasing adverse events.
trial registrationINPLASY: INPLASY202540109.
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.