Bone Healing after Tooth Extraction with or without an Intervention: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the use of a graft and/or membrane post-tooth extraction improves healing of the site dimensionally, radiographically, and/or histologically. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE and the Cochrane Central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) were searched up until August 2011. Randomized controlled trials that included and compared healing post-tooth extraction between a control (no intervention) and a graft and/or membrane (test) were selected. RESULTS: Titles and abstracts of 2,861 papers were screened. A total of 42 papers were selected for full text reading. Nine papers met the eligibility criteria and were selected for further analysis. Because of the varying graft materials used and the different methods of investigation, as well as the variation in follow-up times, a meta-analysis was not possible. The present review found that clinically, there was a range in loss of width in the control sites of 2.46 mm (SD 0.4 mm) to 4.56 mm (SD 0.33 mm) compared to 1.14 mm (SD 0.87 mm) to 2.5 mm (SD 1.2 mm) in the test sites. The range in loss of height in control sites was 0.9 mm (SD 1.6 mm) to 3.6 mm (SD 1.5 mm) compared to a gain of 1.3 mm (SD 2 mm) to a loss of 0.62 mm (SD 0.51 mm) in test sites. Radiographically a range of change in bone height of between 0.51 mm (No SD) to 1.17 mm (SD 1.23 mm) was noted in control sites compared to a change of between 0.02 mm (SD 1.2 mm) and 1 mm (SD 1.4 mm) in test sites. CONCLUSION: There is limited data regarding the effectiveness of alveolar ridge preservation therapies when compared to the control. Overall the socket intervention therapies did reduce alveolar ridge dimensional changes post-extraction, but were unable to prevent resorption. Histology did demonstrate a large proportion of residual graft material that may account for some of the difference in alveolar ridge dimensions at follow up.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".