Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 445

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Surgical protocols for ridge preservation after tooth extraction. A systematic review

Vignoletti, Fabio, Matesanz, Paula, Rodrigo, Daniel, Figuero, Elena, Martin, Conchita, Sanz, Mariano·2012·Clinical Oral Implants Research

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review aims to evaluate the scientific evidence on the efficacy in the surgical protocols designed for preserving the alveolar ridge after tooth extraction and to evaluate how these techniques affect the placement of dental implants and the final implant supported restoration. Material and methods: A thorough search in MEDLINE‐PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) was conducted up to February 2011. Randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies with a follow‐up of at least 3 months reporting changes on both the hard and soft tissues (height and/or width) of the alveolar process (mm or %) after tooth extraction were considered for inclusion. Results: The screening of titles and abstracts resulted in 14 publications meeting the eligibility criteria. Data from nine of these 14 studies could be grouped in the meta‐analyses. Results from the meta‐analyses showed a statistically significant greater ridge reduction in bone height for control groups as compared to test groups (weighted mean differences, WMD = −1.47 mm; 95% CI [−1.982, −0.953]; P < 0.001; heterogeneity: I2 = 13.1%; χ 2 P‐value = 0.314) and a significant greater reduction in bone width for control groups compared to the test groups (WMD = −1.830 mm; 95% CI [−2.947, −0.732]; P = 0.001; heterogeneity: I2 = 0%; χ 2 P‐value = 0.837). Subgroup analysis was based on the surgical protocol used for the socket preservation (flapless/flapped, barrier membrane/no membrane, primary intention healing/no primary healing) and on the measurement method utilized to evaluate morphological changes. Meta‐regression analyses demonstrated a statistically significant difference favoring the flapped subgroup in terms of bone width (meta‐regression; slope = 2.26; 95% IC [1.01; 3.51]; P = 0.003). Conclusions: The potential benefit of socket preservation therapies was demonstrated resulting in significantly less vertical and horizontal contraction of the alveolar bone crest. The scientific evidence does not provide clear guidelines in regards to the type of biomaterial, or surgical procedure, although a significant positive effect of the flapped surgery was observed. There are no data available to draw conclusions on the consequences of such benefits on the long‐term outcomes of implant therapy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02331.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 445

Metadata

Authors
Vignoletti, F., Matesanz, P., Rodrigo, D., Figuero, E., Martin, C., & Sanz, M.
Venue
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-12-28
Volume
23
Issue
s5
Pages
22-38
ISSN
  • 0905-7161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0501
OpenAlex
W2152431994
Cited by
445
References
3
FWCI
3.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Surgical protocols for ridge preservation after tooth extraction. A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02331.x
The paper
Vignoletti, F., Matesanz, P., Rodrigo, D., Figuero, E., Martin, C., & Sanz, M. (2012). Surgical protocols for ridge preservation after tooth extraction. A systematic review. Clinical Oral Implants Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02331.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.