Effect of buccal fat autotransplantation on improving the alveolar socket bone regeneration: An in-vivo study
Mohammadi I., Najafi A., Razavi SM., Khazaei S., Tajmiri G.
Randomized Controlled Trial, published in Heliyon (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Journal
- Heliyon (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 38524537
- PMCID
- PMC10958428
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28131
Abstract (original English)
Background There are various materials used for socket preservation following dental extraction. The aim of the present animal study was to histologically investigate the efficacy of buccal fat autotransplantation on alveolar bone regeneration following dental extraction. Study design In this prospective, double-blind laboratory experiment with a split-mouth design, 16 mandibular second premolar teeth in eight beagle dogs were extracted, and half of the extraction sockets were randomly filled using buccal fat autotransplantation. Other samples were left untouched to heal normally by the formed blood clot. Buccal fat autotransplantation was the primary predictor variable, and the type and amount of newly formed bone were the primary outcome variables. Assessment methods were the H & E coloring technique and histomorphometric evaluation. The significance level was set at 0.05, and data was subjected to Chi-Square and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests using SAS statistical software version 9.4. Results From the total number of 16 samples in 8 dogs, 50% of the samples in the intervention group represented inflammation with lower intensity compared to 33% in the control group; however, this difference was not considered statistically significant (Chi-Square test, P-value = 0.55). Wilcoxon test results showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding the mean
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.