Bone regenerative biomaterials in periapical surgery: A systemic review and meta-Analysis
Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences, ISSN: 0975-7406, Vol: 13, Issue: 6, Page: S933-S937
2021
- 4Citations
- 33Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations4
- Citation Indexes4
- CrossRef4
- Captures33
- Readers33
- 27
Review Description
Introduction: Successful treatment in the endodontics and periodontics depends on the periapical status. Hence, in the present meta-Analysis, we evaluate the various bone regenerative materials in the periapical surgeries. Materials and Methods: Online data were collected from the search engines of EBSCO, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. The searched terms were bone regenerative, bone grafts, bio materials, periapical surgery, and endodontic surgery. Based on the PRISMA guidelines, the meta-Analysis was performed. The studies for the past 10 years were considered that included at least 10 patients. The translatable articles were included that had the human studies that were clinical studies and/or trials and also had the bone regenerative materials used in the procedure. Results: A total of 475 articles were selected, of which 30 were selected based on the criteria. Of these, after the removal of the 21 duplicate articles, 9 articles were finalized. The meta-Analysis showed that when the bone graft materials are used along with the barriers for the regeneration, there were observed higher success rates. Conclusions: The bone regenerative materials can be used for the successful outcome for the periapical surgeries. The guided tissue regeneration along with the bone regenerative materials may aid in the good prognosis of the endodontic and periodontal cases.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85119432537&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_386_21; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35017901; https://journals.lww.com/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_386_21; https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_386_21; https://journals.lww.com/jpbs/fulltext/2021/13002/bone_regenerative_biomaterials_in_periapical.10.aspx
Medknow
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know