SynthesisOdontology2026
Clinical efficacy of bioactive glass in periodontal regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Odontology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Periodontal disease leads to progressive destruction of tooth-supporting tissues. Conventional therapies, such as open flap debridement, control inflammation but provide limited regeneration. Bioactive glass (BG), a bioactive and osteoconductive material, has emerged as a promising regenerative agent in periodontal therapy. This meta-analysis evaluated the clinical efficacy of BG in reducing probing depth (PD) and improving clinical attachment level (CAL) in periodontal lesions. A systematic search of Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library up to April 2025 identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing BG as a standalone intervention for periodontal regeneration. Studies reporting PD and/or CAL outcomes were included. Following Cochrane Collaboration standards, two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed bias risk. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model in RevMan (v5.4) addressed study heterogeneity. Twelve RCTs involving 234 patients and 406 periodontal defects were included. BG significantly improved PD reduction (MD = 1.27 mm; p = 0.0006) and CAL gain (MD = 1.49 mm; p = 0.0005), with moderate-to-high heterogeneity and no significant publication bias. These findings confirm that BG significantly enhances clinical outcomes in periodontal regeneration. Despite variability among studies, BG demonstrates strong potential as an effective regenerative material, warranting further high-quality trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41526568What 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.