Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Horizontal ridge augmentation in maxillary esthetic zone using bovine bone graft versus extended sticky bone with simultaneous implant placement: a randomized clinical study.
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. It is linked to trial NCT07589426 (Horizontal Ridge Augmentation in Maxillary Esthetic Zone Using Bovine Bone Graft Versus Extended Sticky Bone With Simultaneous Implant Placement), which is not on this 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.
Horizontal Ridge Augmentation in Maxillary Esthetic Zone Using Bovine Bone Graft Versus Extended Sticky Bone With Simultaneous Implant Placement
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHorizontal ridge deficiency in the anterior maxilla may compromise optimal implant placement and esthetic outcomes. This randomized clinical trial evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of bovine bone graft (Medpark) MATERIALS AND
methodsSixteen patients with missed maxillary anterior tooth and horizontal ridge resorption were randomly allocated into two groups (n = 8 each). Group I received Medpark graft, while Group II received ESB with simultaneous implant placement. Implant stability was assessed immediately and after 6 months. Soft tissue healing was evaluated using the Landry healing index at 2 and 4 weeks. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed preoperatively (T0), immediately postoperatively (T1), and at 6 months (T6) to assess volumetric bone changes. Data were statistically analyzed using SPSS software (p ≤ 0.05).
resultsAll implants survived without complications. Implant stability increased significantly in both groups at 6 months (p = 0.001), with no significant intergroup differences. Soft tissue healing improved significantly over time in both groups (p = 0.008), without significant differences between them. Both groups demonstrated significant bone volume gain at T1 followed by partial reduction at T6, remaining above baseline. A significant difference was observed at T1 in favor of ESB (p = 0.001), while greater bone loss from T1 to T6 was noted in the ESB group.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, both Medpark and extended sticky bone demonstrated favorable short-term outcomes for horizontal ridge augmentation. Although extended sticky bone achieved greater immediate postoperative bone volume gain, greater subsequent resorption resulted in comparable clinical and radiographic outcomes between the two groups after 6 months. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required to determine the long-term clinical significance of these findings.
trial registrationThe study was listed on www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov with registration number (NCT07589426) on 03/05/2026.
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.