ReviewPharmaceutics2020
Preclinical and Clinical Applications of Biomaterials in the Enhancement of Wound Healing in Oral Surgery: An Overview of the Available Reviews.
Review in Pharmaceutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing Healing in Oral Surgical Procedures: A Review on Biomaterials, Growth Factors, and Tissue Engineering.Cureus · 2026Review
- Regenerative Surgery, State of the Art and New Perspectives: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- A prospective randomized split-mouth trial comparing immediate versus early anterior implant placement with customized healing abutments: 12-month marginal bone loss, stability, and esthetic outcome.Frontiers in dental medicine · 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
- Comparison of Two Bovine Commercial Xenografts in the Regeneration of Critical Cranial Defects.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oral surgery has undergone dramatic developments in recent years due to the use of biomaterials. The aim of the present review is to provide a general overview of the current biomaterials used in oral surgery and to comprehensively outline their impact on post-operative wound healing. A search in Medline was performed, including hand searching. Combinations of searching terms and several criteria were applied for study identification, selection, and inclusion. The literature was searched for reviews published up to July 2020. Reviews evaluating the clinical and histological effects of biomaterials on post-operative wound healing in oral surgical procedures were included. Review selection was performed by two independent reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer, and 41 reviews were included in the final selection. The selected papers covered a wide range of biomaterials such as stem cells, bone grafts, and growth factors. Bioengineering and biomaterials development represent one of the most promising perspectives for the future of oral surgery. In particular, stem cells and growth factors are polarizing the focus of this ever-evolving field, continuously improving standard surgical techniques, and granting access to new approaches.
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.