Socket preservation and its impact on final prosthetic outcomes.

Sidharth Shrikant Joshi, Himanshi Kalra, Gomati Dhande, Deepak R, Prateek Tripathy, Arup Ratan Das

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 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

6 authors.

Sidharth Shrikant JoshiDepartment of Periodontology, Yogita Dental College and Hospital, Khed, Ratnagiri, India.

Himanshi KalraDepartment of Prosthodontics, Geetanjali Dental College, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India.

Gomati DhandeDepartment of Dentistry, Shri Jawahir Hospital, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, India.

Deepak RDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Vinayaka Mission's Sankarachariyar Dental College and Hospital, Salem, India.

Prateek TripathyDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, Hi-Tech Dental College and Hospital, Bhubaneswar, India.

Arup Ratan DasDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, Hi-Tech Dental College and Hospital, Bhubaneswar, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Post-extraction alveolar bone resorption remains a significant clinical challenge, often compromising implant placement and aesthetic outcomes. Hence, fifty patients undergoing tooth extraction were equally divided into two groups: one group received socket preservation using bone grafts and membranes, while the other underwent conventional healing. Clinical, radiographic, and prosthetic parameters were evaluated over an 18-month period. The socket preservation group demonstrated fewer post-operative complications, along with significantly improved aesthetic scores and higher patient satisfaction. Thus, we show the importance of bone grafting procedures in enhancing clinical efficiency, prosthetic outcomes, predictability and aesthetics following tooth extraction.

Indexed as

alveolar ridge preservationbone graftdental implant feasibilityesthetic rehabilitationinterdisciplinary dentistryoral surgeryprosthetic outcomesprosthodonticsridge resorptionSocket preservation

Identifiers

PMID42145388

DOI10.6026/973206300221860

PMCPMC13177154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.