Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Bone lid technique versus standard curettage for maxillofacial cysts: a prospective 3D CBCT study of bone regeneration and tooth stability.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 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
backgroundPreservation of cortical bone during surgical management of maxillofacial cysts may enhance early bone regeneration and functional recovery. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Bone Lid Technique versus standard curettage.
methodsIn this single-center randomized controlled trial, 60 patients with maxillofacial cysts ≥ 3 × 3 × 3 mm were assigned to the Bone Lid group [Formula: see text] or standard curettage group [Formula: see text]. CBCT-based three-dimensional analyses assessed defect volume, surface area, and grayscale value. Periodontal outcomes (probing depth [PD], clinical attachment level [CAL]) and tooth mobility were evaluated at baseline, 3, 6, and 9 months. Percentage changes between consecutive visits were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models, while longitudinal tooth mobility was analyzed using ordinal logistic mixed-effects models. Baseline lesion size was additionally evaluated as a potential confounding factor. A lesion-size sensitivity analysis was performed after excluding lesions in the lowest quartile of the pooled baseline defect-volume distribution. Binary logistic regression was additionally used to assess tooth stability at 9 months.
resultsCompared with the standard curettage group, the Bone Lid group showed significantly greater reductions in defect surface area (β = 13.782, 95% CI 5.924-21.640, P = 0.001) and volume (β = 22.436, 95% CI 14.285-30.587, P < 0.001), and greater increase in grayscale values (β = - 4.615, 95% CI - 8.292 to - 0.938, P = 0.014). PD and CAL improved more favorably in the Bone Lid group (β = 22.548 and 53.913, both P < 0.001). Tooth mobility decreased progressively in both groups, but recovery was faster and more stable in the Bone Lid group. Binary logistic regression confirmed a higher probability of achieving stable teeth at 9 months in the Bone Lid group (OR = 4.42, 95% CI 1.15-17.03, P = 0.031).
conclusionThe Bone Lid Technique was associated with more favorable early bone regeneration and enhanced tooth stability compared with standard curettage. However, the robustness of the surface-area finding should be interpreted cautiously because baseline lesion morphology differed between groups and the corresponding sensitivity estimate was less stable. It may be particularly beneficial for moderate-sized cystic defects, lesions involving multiple adjacent teeth, or cases where preservation of cortical bone and early functional recovery are priorities.
trial registrationThis clinical trial was registered at chictr.org.cn on June 16, 2025 and had registration number ChiCTR2500104364.Retrospectively registered.
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.