Impact of Bone Particle Size on Alveolar Ridge Preservation in Periodontally Compromised Molar Extraction Sites.

Xinbo Yu, Ziang Wu, Chaolun Li, Yiqun Wu

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in International dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Xinbo YuSecond Dental Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China; National Center for Stomatology and National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai, China; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology and Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China.

Ziang WuCollege of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China; National Center for Stomatology and National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai, China; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology and Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China; Department of Prosthodontics, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Chaolun LiSecond Dental Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China; National Center for Stomatology and National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai, China; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology and Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China.

Yiqun WuSecond Dental Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China; College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China; National Center for Stomatology and National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai, China; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology and Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: yiqunwu@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND

aimsThe clinical efficacy of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is well-documented in the literature. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding ARP in the posterior area and in periodontally compromised sites. There is no clinical decision-making guideline on the choice of bone substitute particle size for ARP in periodontally compromised molar sockets. This study aimed to compare the radiographic outcomes and implant feasibility of two deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) particle sizes for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in periodontally compromised molar extraction sockets.

methodsA total of 96 patients (96 sites) with stage III/IV periodontitis requiring molar extraction were divided according to DBBM particle size (small particle [SP]: 0.25-1 or large particle [LP]: 1-2 mm). Dimensional and volumetric changes of the alveolar ridge and level of implant placement difficulty (LIPD) were evaluated. Multivariable linear regression was used to adjust for potential confounders.

resultsLP-DBBM showed a non-significant trend toward increased vertical central socket height (VC; 8.54 ± 2.34 vs 7.76 ± 1.93 mm; P = .077). No significant differences between SP and LP groups were observed for the remaining alveolar dimensional and volumetric changes. However, multivariable linear regression found that socket integrity (number of socket walls with height ≥5 mm; P < .001), jaw (P = .007), and particle size (P = .041) showed significant effects on VC.

conclusionA trend of higher VC using LP after ARP in periodontally compromised molar extraction sockets was observed. The choice of DBBM particle size should be considered alongside site-specific factors, especially socket integrity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the impact of graft particle size on ridge dimensional changes and implant placement feasibility can provide clinical decision-making guidance for ARP in periodontally compromised molar sockets. Larger particle size facilitates superior VC and increases the predictability of subsequent implant treatment.

Indexed as

Alveolar Bone LossAlveolar ProcessAlveolar Ridge AugmentationBone SubstitutesMolarPeriodontitisTooth ExtractionTooth SocketAdultAnimalsCattleFemaleHumansMaleParticle SizeBone SubstitutesAlveolar ridgeBone graftingCone-beam computed tomographyDental implantsPeriodontitisTooth extraction

Identifiers

PMID41865493

DOI10.1016/j.identj.2026.109515

PMCPMC13019792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.