Trial reportClinical implant dentistry and related research2026
Flap Versus Tunneling for Horizontal Ridge Augmentation With FDBA and i-PRF: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Clinical implant dentistry and related 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study evaluated the efficacy of conventional flap and tunneling techniques for horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation using freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) particles combined with injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF). MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-five patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups (n = 15 each): conventional flap (CF), tunneling with membrane (TM), or tunneling without membrane (TnM). Preoperative ridge width was measured via cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). All augmentation procedures incorporated FDBA and i-PRF; an absorbable collagen membrane was applied in the CF and TM groups. Follow-up assessments, including CBCT imaging and histomorphometric analysis, were conducted 6 months postoperatively. For normally distributed data, ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test and paired samples t-test were applied. Non-normally distributed data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
resultsStatistical analysis was performed on 43 patients. All groups demonstrated an increase in ridge width after 6 months. At the 2 mm level, the mean width gain was 1.28 mm (95% CI: 0.17 to 2.40) in the TM group, 2.85 mm (95% CI: 1.80 to 3.89) in the TnM group, and 1.95 mm (95% CI: 1.07 to 2.83) in the CF group. However, statistical analysis revealed no significant intergroup variation (p > 0.05). Histomorphometric assessments similarly demonstrated comparable outcomes across all groups, with no statistically significant differences observed (p > 0.05).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, the tunneling technique, regardless of membrane use, appears to be a clinically viable alternative to the conventional flap method for horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation. However, further studies with longer follow-up periods are required to substantiate these findings.
trial registrationirct.behdasht.gov.ir identifier: IRCT 20101204005305N21.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.