ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Randomized controlled trial of immediate alveolar ridge preservation for bone and soft tissue aesthetics after tooth extraction.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) on soft tissue morphology, correlate them with underlying bone changes, and assess its clinical value. It directly compared alveolar bone preservation and soft tissue aesthetics between ARP and conventional tooth extraction. Methods: In this prospective randomized controlled trial, sixty patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via sealed envelopes to a control group (conventional extraction) or an ARP group (immediate grafting with Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. After 12 months, the control group showed significantly greater bone resorption in height (1.3 mm) and width (1.7 mm) compared to the ARP group (0.7 mm and 1.1 mm, respectively; Conclusions: Immediate ARP using
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.