ArticleIranian endodontic journal2009
Comparing alveolar bone regeneration using Bio-Oss and autogenous bone grafts in humans: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Iranian endodontic journal, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Distinct healing dynamics associated with xenograft selection in guided bone regeneration.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Optical Coherence Tomography, Stereomicroscopic, and Histological Aspects of Bone Regeneration on Rat Calvaria in the Presence of Bovine Xenograft or Titanium-Reinforced Hydroxyapatite.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Descriptive analysis of autologous and xenograft materials for secondary alveolar bone grafting in cleft lip and palate patients: a literature review.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2025Review
- Application of Nanohydroxyapatite in Medicine-A Narrative Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Evaluation of Two Anorganic Bovine Xenogenous Grafts in Bone Healing of Critical Defect in Rats Calvaria.Brazilian dental journal · 2024Article
- Fast Degradable Calcium Phosphate Cement for Maxillofacial Bone Regeneration.Tissue engineering. Part A · 2023Article
- Bioceramic Cements: Supporting in Remineralization of Osteolytic Lesions in Endodontic-periodontal Diseases: A Report of Two Cases.Iranian endodontic journal · 2023Article
- Long-Term Outcomes of Implants Placed in Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation with Porous Fluorohydroxyapatite (AlgiporeJournal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Conservative Management of Periapical Cementoblastoma: A Case Report.Iranian endodontic journal · 2022Article
- Clinical Comparation of Extra-Short (4 mm) and Long (>8 mm) Dental Implants Placed in Mandibular Bone: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Histomorphometric, Immunohistochemical, Ultrastructural Characterization of a Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate Composite and a Bone Xenograft in Sub-Critical Size Bone Defect in Rat Calvaria.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBone regeneration grafts (BRG) are widely used in the treatment of osseous defects and oral surgery. The various techniques and associated success rates of bone augmentation require evaluation by systematic review and meta-analysis of eligible studies. The aim of this systematic review was to compare alveolar bone regeneration in humans using Bio-Oss and autogenous bone graft. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe computerized bibliographical databases including Pubmed, Google, ScienceDirect and Cochrane were searched for randomized and cohort studies in which autogenous grafts were compared to Bio-Oss in the treatment of periodontal defects. The inclusion criteria were human studies in English that were published 1998-2009. Exclusion criteria included non randomized observation and cohort studies, papers which provided summary statistics without the variance estimates, and studies that did not use BRG intervention alone, were excluded. The screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were collected by two observers independently. For comparing autogenous grafts used alone against Bio-Oss used alone 5 situations were investigated. Thirteen studies were included in the review which compared autogenous against Bio-Oss, autogenous combined with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) against GTR, Bio-Oss combined with GTR versus GTR, autogenous alone versus Open Flap Debridement (OFD), Bio-Oss versus OFD. In meta-analysis, changes in bone level (bone fill) was used as the measure. Data were analyzed using Bayesian meta-analysis by WinBUGS and Boa software.
resultsOnly one comparison demonstrated that the difference in bone augmentation between Bio-Oss and OFD was statistically significant.
conclusionThere is insufficient evidence to show that Bio-Oss is superior to autogenous grafts in bone augmentation techniques however autogenous bone involves donor site surgery and thus donor site morbidity, so we can conclude that Bio-Oss is better than autogenous for alveolar regeneration. [Iranian Endodontic Journal 2009;4(4):125-30].
Indexed as
Identifiers
24019832PMC3766618W1641113572What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.