ReviewJournal of oral & maxillofacial research
Extraction Socket Preservation Using Growth Factors and Stem Cells: a Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of oral & maxillofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alveolar ridge preservation with a collagen cone: Histological, histochemical, and immunohistochemical results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2020Trial
- Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Socket Preservation Technique Using Allogeneic and Xenogeneic Materials: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Expression of BMP-2, OPG, RANKL And Number of Osteoblasts After Application of Bovine Amniotic Membrane and Secretome Umbilical Cord in Wistar Rats.Nanotheranostics · 2026Article
- Optimizing Alveolar Ridge Preservation and GBR: A Systematic Review of Membranes, Grafts, and Soft Tissue Strategies for Personalized Care.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
- Enamel Matrix Derivatives as an Adjunct to Alveolar Ridge Preservation-A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2023Review
- Evaluation of human growth hormone (somatropin) in socket healing: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- Bioactivation of 3D Cell-Imprinted Polydimethylsiloxane Surfaces by Bone Protein Nanocoating for Bone Tissue Engineering.ACS omega · 2022Article
- Pathogenesis and treatment of wound healing in patients with diabetes after tooth extraction.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Review
- Preclinical and Clinical Applications of Biomaterials in the Enhancement of Wound Healing in Oral Surgery: An Overview of the Available Reviews.Pharmaceutics · 2020Review
- The 2Journal of oral & maxillofacial 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the reported literature on the use of stem cells or growth factors for post extraction treatment of the alveolar bone. MATERIAL AND
methodsA NCBI PubMed and PubMed Central databases search was conducted between September 2010 and August 2018, to identify animal or clinical studies reporting the clinical, radiographical and/or histological outcomes of socket preservation techniques after applying mesenchymal stem cells or growth factors. Only studies published in English language in the last 10 years were included in the study.
resultsEleven studies were identified fulfilling the inclusion criteria. They evaluate a total of 386 post extraction sockets. The main tested materials identified in the current review were bone morphogenetic protein-2 - 3 studies and mesenchymal stem cells - 3 studies. Other comparators were bone morphogenetic protein-9, platelet-derived growth factor-BB homodimers and bone marrow. Overall evaluation indicate positive results for all test groups showing differences in final socket width between 0.64 and 1.28 mm favouring the test groups. Histologically, no particular differences are detected between test and control groups. Most of the studies present low risk of bias.
conclusionsIn general, the use of mesenchymal stem cells or bioactive osteogenic molecules favours bone regeneration after tooth extraction, as evaluated clinically, radiographically and histologically. However, specific differences that support particular recommendations are still unclear in light of the current published evidence. Future studies should include the standardization of the mesenchymal stem cells selection and purification as well as dosage and delivery methods of bioactive molecules.
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.