ArticlePatient preference and adherence2019
Multicenter study of patients' preferences and concerns regarding the origin of bone grafts utilized in dentistry.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decision-making regarding dental treatments - What factors matter from patients' perspective? A systematic review.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of Different Materials for Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation With Lateral Approach. A Systematic Review.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of xenograft to prevent periodontal defects after mandibular third molar extraction.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2021Pooled it
- Comparative Histological and Histomorphometric Analysis of Xenografts and Synthetic Biomaterials in Rabbit Sinus Floor Elevation.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Decoding bone grafting preferences: a cross-sectional survey of patient perspectives and influence of treatment cost.BDJ open · 2026Article
- Bone Grafts: Everything You Need to Know.Journal of periodontal research · 2026Review
- Experimental study on antler powder/chitosan/β-glycerophosphate/polyvinyl alcohol composite platelet-rich fibrin scaffold for repairing periodontal bone defects in rabbits.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- What Do Patients Prefer in Periodontal and Implant Therapy? A Scoping Review.Journal of periodontal research · 2025Article
- Article
- Prospective Clinical Study with New Materials for Tissue Regeneration: A Study in Humans.European journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Article
- A cross-sectional survey of patient's perception and knowledge of dental implants in Japan.International journal of implant dentistry · 2022Article
- Nanocomposites of Chitosan/Graphene Oxide/Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles/Blackberry Waste Extract as Potential Bone Substitutes.Polymers · 2021Article
- Physical characterization of biphasic bioceramic materials with different granulation sizes and their influence on bone repair and inflammation in rat calvaria.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Patients' Perspectives of Grafting Materials in Implant Dentistry: A Qualitative Analysis.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
- Ovine bone graft enhances osteogenic commitment in human osteoblasts via selective suppression of miR-6797-5p: In silico and in vitro study.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBone graft materials can be obtained from the patient's own body (autologous graft), animals (xenograft), human cadavers (allograft) and synthetic materials (alloplastic bone graft). Patients may have ethical, religious or medical concerns about the origin of bone grafts, which could lead them to reject the use of certain types of bone graft in their treatments. The aim of this multicenter study, which surveyed patients from five university clinics in Portugal, France, Italy, Spain and Chile, was to analyze patients' opinions regarding the source of bone grafts. PATIENTS AND
methodsA survey composed of ten questions was translated into local languages and validated. Patients were asked about the degree of acceptance/rejection of each graft and the reasons for rejection. A chi-squared test was used to analyze statistically significant differences.
resultsThree hundred thirty patients were surveyed. The grafts that elicited the highest percentage of refusal were allograft (40.4%), autologous bone graft from an extraoral donor site (34%) and xenograft (32.7%). The grafts with the lowest rate of refusal were alloplastic (6.3%) and autologous bone grafts from an intraoral donor site (24.5%). The main reason for autologous bone rejection was the fear of pain and discomfort, for xenograft it was the fear of disease transmission and the rejection of use of animals for human benefit, and for allograft it was ethical/moral motivations and the fear of disease transmission. Religious affiliation influenced patient's preferences.
conclusionThe origin of bone grafts is still conflictive for a high percentage of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.