Trial reportClinical oral implants research2026
Block Versus Particulate Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral for Guided Bone Regeneration of Peri-Implant Dehiscence Defects: A 5-Year Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral implants 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
Abstract
To assess the 5-year dimensional stability of buccal hard-tissues following guided bone regeneration (GBR) of peri-implant dehiscence defects using deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) blocks or particulate.
methodsPatients requiring single-tooth implants and presenting a buccal dehiscence defect (≥ 3 mm) at implant placement were randomly allocated to GBR using either particulate DBBM or an individually shaped DBBM-block, both covered with a resorbable collagen membrane. Buccal hard-tissue thickness was assessed using cone-beam computed tomography postoperatively, at 6 months and at 5 years. Buccal horizontal thickness at the implant shoulder and corono-buccal thickness measured at 45° were recorded. Secondary outcomes included marginal bone levels, clinical parameters and implant survival. Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare the groups to account for within-subject correlations.
resultsTwenty-two of 24 patients completed the 5-year follow-up. Buccal hard-tissue thickness decreased over time in both groups, however, the block-group showed significantly greater dimensional stability. At 5 years, mean buccal horizontal hard-tissue thickness was 1.36 ± 1.16 mm in the block-group and 0.07 ± 0.16 mm in the particulate-group (adjusted mean difference, -1.2 mm; 95% CI, -1.9 to-0.6; p < 0.001). Corono-buccal thickness at 45° was also significantly greater in the block-group (adjusted mean difference, -0.3 mm; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1; p = 0.002). Marginal bone levels and clinical parameters showed no clinically relevant differences. No implant loss or peri-implantitis was observed.
conclusionGBR using either DBBM blocks or particulate DBBM resulted in similar peri-implant clinical outcomes and implant survival at 5 years. However, DBBM blocks provided superior long-term preservation of the buccal hard-tissue contour.
trial registrationClinical Trial Registration Number, DRKS00005803.
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.