Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Comparative efficacy of modified versus standard deproteinized bovine bone mineral for compromised socket preservation: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocket preservation with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) is standard practice following tooth extraction, yet outcomes in compromised sockets with damaged buccal walls due to severe periodontitis remain unpredictable, with excessive fibrous tissue formation limiting bone regeneration. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the histomorphometric efficacy of a novel DBBM (DB1) compared to standard DBBM (DB2) in compromised sockets, with primary focus on new bone formation and tissue composition, supplemented by clinical and radiographic assessments. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis randomized, controlled, single-blind clinical trial randomized 34 patients (31 completed per-protocol analysis) requiring single tooth extraction due to severe periodontitis or combined endodontic-periodontal lesions. Participants were randomly allocated to test (DB1, n = 17) or control (DB2, n = 17) groups, with all sites covered by collagen membrane. Bone biopsies were harvested at 16 weeks during implant placement for histomorphometric analysis using digital pathology software. Primary outcome was percentage of newly formed bone. Non-inferiority was assessed at three stringency levels (Δ = -7%, -5%, -3.5%): DB1 was considered non-inferior to DB2 if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference (DB1-DB2) exceeded each threshold. Secondary outcomes included residual graft material, bone marrow and fibrous tissue, bone remodeling efficiency, implant stability quotient changes, and radiographic density changes measured by cone-beam computed tomography.
resultsNew bone formation in the test group (17.7 ± 9.8% vs. 10.8 ± 9.6%) demonstrated non-inferiority, with the 95% CI lower bound (-0.19%) exceeding all three predefined margins (mean difference + 6.95%, p < 0.001). Bone remodeling efficiency similarly demonstrated non-inferiority (0.23 ± 0.15 vs. 0.13 ± 0.14; p < 0.001). The test group showed significantly lower bone marrow and fibrous tissue content (47.4 ± 17.0% vs. 62.8 ± 19.8%; p = 0.028) with higher residual graft retention (34.8 ± 12.2% vs. 26.5 ± 11.5%; p = 0.059). No significant differences were observed in implant stability or radiographic density changes.
conclusionsDB1 demonstrated non-inferiority to DB2 for compromised socket preservation, exhibiting distinct tissue composition patterns with reduced fibrous tissue formation and enhanced volume maintenance capacity.
trial registrationThis randomized clinical trial has been retrospectively registered at Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) with identification number KCT0011262 on December 5, 2025.
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.