ReviewMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2022
A comparison between anorganic bone and collagen-preserving bone xenografts for alveolar ridge preservation: systematic review and future perspectives.
Review in Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of collagen sponge and xenografts versus collagen sponge alone in alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Customized three-dimensional printed ceramic bone grafts for osseous defects: a prospective randomized study.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Predictability, Skeletal Stability, and Safety of Iliac Crest Bone Grafts in Large Maxillary Advancement with Le Fort I Osteotomy: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison of crosslinked and non-crosslinked collagenated xenografts for vertical bone augmentation in rabbit calvaria.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of four bone substitute types in sinus augmentation with perforated Schneiderian membrane: An experimental study.Journal of periodontology · 2025Article
- Collagen Formulation in Xenogeneic Bone Substitutes Influences Cellular Responses in Periodontal Regeneration: An In Vitro Study.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Tomographic and Electron Microscopy Description of Two Bone-Substitute Xenografts for the Preservation of Dental Alveoli.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- 3D-Printable Biopolymers for Socket Preservation Technique: Soft Tissues Response: A Pilot Randomised Clinical Study.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Advancements in alveolar bone grafting and ridge preservation: a narrative review on materials, techniques, and clinical outcomes.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2024Review
- Horizontal GBR with anorganic equine bone combined with a customized titanium mesh.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Potentials of pure xenograft materials in maxillary ridge augmentation: A case series.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Relevant Properties and Potential Applications of Sericin in Bone Regeneration.Current issues in molecular biology · 2023Review
- A novel technique for socket-shield preparation used in conjunction with immediate implant placement. A case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2023Article
- Self-Prepared Hyaluronic Acid/Alkaline Gelatin Composite with Nano-Hydroxyapatite and Bone Morphogenetic Protein for Cranial Bone Formation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After tooth extraction, dimensional changes affect the alveolar socket, leading to loss in alveolar bone height and width. Histological modifications also occur, with initial formation of a blood clot that is replaced with granulation tissue and subsequently with a provisional connective tissue matrix. Spontaneous healing ends with socket filling with woven bone, which is gradually replaced with lamellar bone and bone marrow. Adequate alveolar ridge dimensions and bone quality are required to assure optimal stability and osseointegration following dental implant placement. When a tooth is extracted, alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) procedures are an effective method to prevent collapse of the post-extraction socket. Heterologous bone is widely chosen by clinicians for ARP, and anorganic bone xenografts (ABXs) made bioinert by heat treatment represents the most used biomaterial in clinical applications. Collagen-preserving bone xenografts (CBXs) made of porcine or equine bone are fabricated by less invasive chemical or enzymatic treatments to remove xenogenic antigens, and these are also effective in preserving post-extraction sites. Clinical differences between anorganic bone substitutes and collagen-preserving materials are not well documented in the literature but understanding these differences could clarify how processing protocols influence biomaterial behavior in situ. This systematic review of the literature compares the dimensional changes and histological features of ABXs versus CBXs in ridge preservation procedures to promote awareness of different bone xenograft efficacies in stimulating the healing of post-extraction sockets.
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.