Clinical and radiographic assessment of cross-linked hyaluronic acid addition in demineralized bovine bone based alveolar ridge preservation: A human randomized split-mouth pilot study.

PURPOSE: To investigate clinically and radiographically at 4 months post-operatively the outcomes of mixing demineralized bovine bone material (DBBM) with cross-linked hyaluronic acid in alveolar ridge preservation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seven patients presenting bilateral hopeless teeth (14 teeth) were enrolled in the study, the test site contained demineralized bovine bone material (DBBM) mixed with cross-linked hyaluronic acid (xHyA) while the control site contained only DBBM. 4 months post-operatively prior to implant placement a Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan was recorded and compared to the initial scan to assess the volumetric and linear bone resorption that occurred in both sites. Clinically, sites that needed further bone grafting at the implant placement stage were recorded. Differences in volumetric and linear bone resorption between both groups were assessed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. McNemar test was also used to evaluate difference in bone grafting need between both groups. RESULTS: All sites healed uneventfully, volumetric and linear resorption differences between the baseline and 4 months post-operatively were obtained for each site. The mean volumetric and linear bone resorption were respectively 36.56 ± 1.69%, 1.42 ± 0.16 mm in the controls sites and 26.96 ± 1.83%; 0.73 ± 0.052 mm in the tests sites. The values were significantly higher among controls sites (P=0.018). No significant differences were observed in the need for bone grafting between both groups. CONCLUSION: Cross-linked hyaluronic acid (xHyA) appears to limit the post-extractional alveolar bone resorption when mixed with DBBM.

Reporting of funding and conflicts of interest improved from preprints to peer-reviewed publications of biomedical research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To assess changes in the reporting of funding and conflicts of interest (COI) in biomedical research between preprint server publications and their corresponding versions in peer-reviewed journals. METHODS: We selected preprint servers publishing exclusively biomedical research. From these, we screened articles by order of publication date and identified 200 preprints first published in 2020 with subsequent versions in peer-reviewed journals. We judged eligibility and extracted data about authorship, funding, and COI in duplicate and independently. We performed descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A quarter of the studies added at least one author to the peer-reviewed version. Most studies reported funding in both versions (87%), and a quarter of these added at least one funder to the peer-reviewed version. Eighteen studies (9%) reported funding only in the peer-reviewed version. A majority of studies reported COI in both versions (69%) and 5% of these had authors reporting more COI in the peer-reviewed version. A minority of studies (23%) reported COI only in the peer-reviewed version. None of the studies justified any changes in authorship, funding, or COI. CONCLUSION: Reporting of funding and COI improved in peer-reviewed versions. However, substantive percentages of studies added authors, funders, and COI disclosures in their peer-reviewed versions.