Trial reportBrazilian oral research2026
Clinical outcomes of implants in atrophic ridges augmented with collagenated xenogeneic or autogenous bone: 4-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Brazilian oral research, 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
This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of dental implants placed in alveolar ridges augmented with collagenated xenogeneic bone blocks (CXBB) or autogenous bone blocks (ABB). In this non-interventional study, 20 patients (CXBB: n = 11; ABB: n = 9) from a previous randomized controlled clinical trial were followed for four years. These patients had undergone lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with either CXBB or ABB, with implants placed after a 30-week healing period. The following parameters were assessed: implant survival and success rates, peri-implant clinical parameters, Pink Esthetic Scores (PES), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Both groups demonstrated high implant survival rates, with only one late failure occurring in the ABB group. There were no statistically significant differences between the CXBB and ABB groups regarding implant survival and success rates (p > 0.05). Peri-implant clinical assessments indicated healthy tissue surrounding the implants in both groups, with no significant differences between CXBB- and ABB-grafted sites. While overall PES scores were similar, the ABB group showed significantly higher scores for soft tissue level and contour (p < 0.05). Patient-reported outcomes, accessed via the OHIP-14 questionnaire, indicated comparable satisfaction levels between the two groups. Both CXBB and ABB groups exhibited comparable long-term outcomes for implant survival and success. Although the ABB group demonstrated slightly better esthetic results, CXBB showed comparable clinical and patient-reported results, suggesting it may be a feasible alternative for staged lateral alveolar ridge augmentation. These findings should, however, be interpreted with caution given the limited number of patients.
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.