Santana 2019.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Trial design: randomised, parallel‐group trial Location: Massachusetts, USA Number of centres: single centre, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Recruitment period: not mentioned Funding source: self‐funded |
|
| Participants | Inclusion criteria: patients aged ≥18 years, required extraction of single‐rooted tooth and committed to replacement with dental implant after 6 months Exclusion criteria: any condition that contraindicated surgery; immunosuppressive systemic diseases; smoking Age at baseline: range 34 to 52 years Gender: M 14/F 18 Smokers: 0 Teeth extracted: single‐rooted teeth Number randomised (participants/sites): 32/45 Number evaluated (participants/sites): 31/41 (27 included in our analyses) |
|
| Interventions |
Comparison: ARP (grafting material) versus ARP (grafting material) Test group A: (n = 13 extraction sockets) mineralised ground cancellous human allograft (AlloGraft, OCAN 250‐1000 microns; Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) + synthetic polymeric polyethylene glycol (PEG) barrier membrane (Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) Test group B: (n = 14 extraction sockets) deproteinised bovine bone mineral (DBBM) (Bio‐Oss, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) + PEG barrier membrane (Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) Test group C: (n = 14 extraction sockets) PEG barrier membrane (Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) (not included in analyses) Surgical technique: flap, primary closure Type of socket: 4‐wall socket Duration of follow‐up: 6 months |
|
| Outcomes | Width and height of alveolar ridge, histologic analysis Method of assessment: periodontal probe, caliper, template |
|
| Notes | Sample size calculation: not reported | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information in the article |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information in the article |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | No information in the article |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | 4 sites were excluded but authors did not fully clarify all the reasons for dropouts apart from some inadequate sampling for histological evaluation |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All outcomes appear to be reported |
| Other bias | Low risk | None detected |