ArticleCureus2025
Effect of Different Bone Graft Materials on Buccal Wall Dimensions During Socket Preservation: A 3D Retrospective Pilot Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Socket preservation is a fundamental procedure in dental implantology aimed at minimizing post-extraction alveolar ridge resorption. Buccal wall integrity plays a crucial role in implant stability and esthetic outcomes. However, limited research has compared the effects of different bone graft materials on buccal wall preservation. The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the impact of three bone graft materials, namely autografts, allografts, and xenografts, on buccal wall dimensions in socket preservation procedures using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and AI-based superimposition techniques. Methodology A retrospective comparative cohort study was conducted on 23 patients who underwent socket preservation between 2017 and 2024. Patients were categorized into three groups based on graft material: allografts, xenografts, and autografts. High-resolution preoperative (T0) and six months postoperative (T1) CBCT scans were analyzed using 3D Slicer® software. Superimposition techniques enabled precise measurement of buccal wall thickness at three levels (L2, L4, L6). Statistical analyses, including Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, were performed to assess differences in buccal wall dimensions and resorption rates. Results At follow-up (T1), xenografts exhibited significantly better preservation of buccal wall thickness at L2 compared to autografts and allografts (
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.