Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30303581›Full record

ArticleClinical oral implants research2018

Comparison of allogeneic and autogenous bone grafts for augmentation of alveolar ridge defects-A 12-month retrospective radiographic evaluation.

Frank R Kloss, Vincent Offermanns, Anita Kloss-Brandstätter

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. [Posterior Wall Reconstruction Using Iliac Strut Graft in Posterior Acetabular Wall Fracture].Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Biomaterials for Guided Bone Regeneration: Science and Rationale.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Frank R KlossPrivate Clinic for Oral, Maxillofacial and Plastic Facial Surgery, Lienz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6748-6365
Vincent OffermannsDepartment of Cranio-, Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Anita Kloss-BrandstätterCarinthia University of Applied Sciences, Villach, Austria.
FH Kärnten · ATInnsbruck Medical University · ATUniversity Clinic of Traumatology · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare three-dimensional alterations following the use of autogenous versus allogeneic onlay grafts for augmentation at single tooth defects. MATERIALS AND

methodsAlveolar bone width at specific implant sites were assessed using sagittal and cross-sectional CBCT images prior grafting and at three subsequent time points. Twenty-one patients received autogenous bone blocks harvested from the retromolar region and another 21 patients received freeze-dried cancellous allogeneic bone blocks.

resultsThe vertical and horizontal dimensions did not significantly differ between autogenous and allogeneic bone grafts at any time point. In addition, there were no statistically significant differences in graft remodeling rates between autogenous (mean shrinkage rate after 12 months: 12.5% ± 7.8%) and allogeneic onlay grafts (mean shrinkage rate after 12 months: 14.4% ± 9.8%).

conclusionsFreeze-dried cancellous allogeneic bone blocks showed equivalent volumetric shrinkage rates as autogenous bone blocks when used for treating circumscribed bone defects classified as Type-II to Type-IV according to the ITI-treatment guide categories. Therefore, it is not necessary to over-contour the alveolar ridge when using allogeneic blocks for treating single tooth defects, but to apply the same procedure as when using autogenous blocks.

Indexed as

allogeneicalveolar ridge defectaugmentationautogenousdental implantsgraft remodeling

Identifiers

PMID30303581
PMCPMC6282851
OpenAlexW2897374541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.