ArticleBMJ open2026
Tenting screw technique for guided bone regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInadequate alveolar bone is a critical challenge for the placement of implants. The tenting screw technique has been demonstrated to be effective for bone augmentation. However, no previous systematic reviews have addressed the clinical outcomes of the tenting screw technique for guided bone regeneration (TS-GBR). Thus, we aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to systematically assess the clinical outcomes of TS-GBR. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search eight databases to identify relevant studies. Clinical trials that report the outcomes of bone augmentation with the application of the tenting screw technique and that meet the inclusion criteria will be included. Two authors will independently conduct the literature search and data extraction. The risk of bias of the included studies will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist on the basis of the study design. Weighted means will be calculated. R software will be used to perform the data analysis. A funnel plot will be generated to assess publication bias. The quality of evidence for each outcome will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable since this is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis that does not include actual patients or require data privacy. We will summarise the currently available data related to TS-GBR. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSRERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251043324.
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.