Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33565017›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2021

Healing of intrabony defects following regenerative surgery by means of single-flap approach in conjunction with either hyaluronic acid or an enamel matrix derivative: a 24-month randomized controlled clinical trial.

Andrea Pilloni, Mariana A Rojas, Lorenzo Marini, Paola Russo, Yoshinori Shirakata, Anton Sculean, Roberta Iacono

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Andrea PilloniSection of Periodontology, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 6 Caserta Street, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Mariana A RojasSection of Periodontology, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 6 Caserta Street, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Lorenzo MariniSection of Periodontology, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 6 Caserta Street, 00161, Rome, Italy. lorenzo.marini@uniroma1.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6662-2644
Paola RussoSection of Periodontology, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 6 Caserta Street, 00161, Rome, Italy.
Yoshinori ShirakataDepartment of Periodontology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima, Japan.
Anton SculeanDepartment of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Roberta IaconoSection of Periodontology, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 6 Caserta Street, 00161, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the clinical outcomes obtained in intrabony defects following regenerative periodontal surgery using the single-flap approach (SFA) in conjunction with either hyaluronic acid (HA) or enamel matrix derivative (EMD). MATERIALS AND

methodsThirty-two intrabony defects in 32 healthy subjects were randomly assigned: HA (test group) or EMD (control group). Clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), gingival recession (REC), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded at baseline,12, 18, and 24 months after surgery.

resultsAt 24 months, both treatments resulted in statistically significant clinical improvements evidenced by PD-reduction and CAL-gain (p<0.001). The mean CAL-gain was 2.19±1.11 mm in the test and 2.94±1.12 mm in the control sites (p=0.067). PD-reduction was statistically significantly higher for the control group (4.5±0.97 mm) than the test group (3.31±0.70 mm), (p=0.001). CAL-gain ≤ 3 mm was observed in 87.5% and in 62.5% of the test and control sites, respectively. Test sites showed slightly lower REC values than the control sites. No statistically significant differences were found for BOP between treatments.

conclusionsThe present findings indicate that both treatments led to statistically significant clinical improvements compared to baseline, although the application of EMD resulted in statistically significantly higher PD-reduction compared to the use of HA. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of HA in conjunction with a SFA resulted in significant PD-reduction and CAL-gain, pointing to the potential clinical relevance of this material in regenerative periodontal surgery.

Indexed as

Alveolar Bone LossDental Enamel ProteinsGingival RecessionDental Plaque IndexFollow-Up StudiesGuided Tissue Regeneration, PeriodontalHumansHyaluronic AcidPeriodontal Attachment LossTreatment OutcomeDental Enamel ProteinsHyaluronic AcidEnamel matrix derivativeHyaluronic acidIntrabony defectsPeriodontal pocketPeriodontal regenerationRandomized clinical trial

Identifiers

PMID33565017
PMCPMC8342388

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.