Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Partially demineralized allogeneic cancellous bone plug versus deproteinized bovine bone mineral for guided bone regeneration: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 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
Abstract
objectivesTo compare a partially demineralized allogeneic cancellous bone plug (ACBP) with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) for guided bone regeneration (GBR), focusing on CBCT-based dimensional outcomes and histomorphometric tissue composition at implant placement. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this prospective randomized controlled clinical trial, 25 adults requiring GBR for two common indications-posterior maxillary sinus floor elevation or mandibular posterior extraction socket preservation-were randomized to ACBP (n = 12) or DBBM (n = 13), with collagen membrane coverage in both groups. Radiographic endpoints were indication-specific and were reported separately for sinus and socket sites. CBCT was obtained at baseline and 6 months to assess augmented height (sinus sites) and ridge dimensions at standardized levels (socket sites). At 6 months (implant placement), a 3-mm trephine core was harvested for H&E staining and histomorphometric quantification of vital bone (VB, %) and residual graft material (RG, %). Between-group comparisons used independent-samples t tests (two-sided P < 0.05).
resultsAll participants completed the 6-month follow-up. VB did not differ significantly between ACBP and DBBM (38.84 ± 8.37% vs. 32.18 ± 11.04%, P = 0.105), whereas RG was significantly lower with ACBP (11.18 ± 5.48% vs. 19.80 ± 8.23%, P = 0.006). CBCT outcomes were comparable between groups, with no significant differences in sinus height gain (7.82 ± 1.52 mm vs. 8.21 ± 4.30 mm, P = 0.852) or socket-related ridge dimensional changes (all P > 0.05).
conclusionWithin a 6-month healing interval, ACBP showed CBCT-based dimensional outcomes comparable to DBBM and a lower residual graft fraction with a similar vital bone fraction at implant placement, suggesting that the observed difference was more related to graft turnover than to greater bone formation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: At routine implant timing (~ 6 months), use of ACBP was associated with a lower residual graft fraction at re-entry while maintaining short-term CBCT-based dimensional stability.
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.