Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 391

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Study Evaluating Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein‐2 for Extraction Socket Augmentation

Fiorellini, Joseph P., Howell, T. Howard, Cochran, David, Malmquist, Jay, Lilly, Leslie C., Spagnoli, Daniel, Toljanic, Joseph, Jones, Archie, Nevins, Myron·2005·Journal of Periodontology

Abstract

Background: Conventional dentoalveolar osseous reconstruction often involves the use of grafting materials with or without barrier membranes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of bone induction for the placement of dental implants by two concentrations of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein‐2 (rhBMP‐2) delivered on a bioabsorbable collagen sponge (ACS) compared to placebo (ACS alone) and no treatment in a human buccal wall defect model following tooth extraction. Methods: Eighty patients requiring local alveolar ridge augmentation for buccal wall defects (≥50% buccal bone loss of the extraction socket) of the maxillary teeth (bicuspids forward) immediately following tooth extraction were enrolled. Two sequential cohorts of 40 patients each were randomized in a double‐masked manner to receive 0.75 mg/ml or 1.50 mg/ml rhBMP‐2/ACS, placebo (ACS alone), or no treatment in a 2:1:1 ratio. Efficacy was assessed by evaluating the amount of bone induction, the adequacy of the alveolar bone volume to support an endosseous dental implant, and the need for a secondary augmentation. Results: Assessment of the alveolar bone indicated that patients treated with 1.50 mg/ml rhBMP‐2/ACS had significantly greater bone augmentation compared to controls (P ≤0.05). The adequacy of bone for the placement of a dental implant was approximately twice as great in the rhBMP‐2/ACS groups compared to no treatment or placebo. In addition, bone density and histology revealed no differences between newly induced and native bone. Conclusion: The data from this randomized, masked, placebocontrolled multicenter clinical study demonstrated that the novel combination of rhBMP‐2 and a commonly utilized collagen sponge had a striking effect on de novo osseous formation for the placement of dental implants. J Periodontol 2005;76:605‐613.

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 · 10.1902/jop.2005.76.4.605

Cites

13 of 13 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 13 references

Cited by

See all 391

Metadata

Authors
Fiorellini, J. P., Howell, T. H., Cochran, D., Malmquist, J., Lilly, L. C., Spagnoli, D., Toljanic, J., Jones, A., & Nevins, M.
Venue
Journal of Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-04
Volume
76
Issue
4
Pages
605-613
ISSN
  • 0022-3492 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-3670
OpenAlex
W2032772487
Cited by
391
References
13
FWCI
14.47
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: Randomized Study Evaluating Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein‐2 for Extraction Socket Augmentation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1902/jop.2005.76.4.605
The paper
Fiorellini, J. P., Howell, T. H., Cochran, D., Malmquist, J., Lilly, L. C., Spagnoli, D., Toljanic, J., Jones, A., & Nevins, M. (2005). Randomized Study Evaluating Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein‐2 for Extraction Socket Augmentation. Journal of Periodontology. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2005.76.4.605

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.