ReviewDentistry journal2023
Success of Xenografts in Alveolar Ridge Preservation Based on Histomorphometric Outcomes.
Review in Dentistry journal, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Socket Preservation Technique Using Allogeneic and Xenogeneic Materials: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Bovine- and Porcine-Derived Xenografts in Rabbit Calvarial and Canine Mandibular Dehiscence Models.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Histological Analysis of Sticky Tooth and Sticky Bone.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Bovine- and Porcine-Deproteinized Grafts for Guided Bone Regeneration: An In Vivo Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Challenges and Innovations in Alveolar Bone Regeneration: A Narrative Review on Materials, Techniques, Clinical Outcomes, and Future Directions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Different xenograft approaches in alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) are essential to understand relative to their histomorphometric outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study involved studying biomaterials of a xenograft nature that are used in ARP procedures, to compare the different approaches and evaluate their efficacy in relation to histomorphometric data. An electronic search was completed using the databases: Ovid (Medline), Google Scholar and Wiley Online Library, including a hand search for relevant articles and grey literature. Only randomised controlled trials, using xenograft biomaterials for alveolar ridge preservation procedures involving human studies, dated from 2010-2022 were included in the review. An initial search yielded 4918 articles, after application of the eligibility criteria, 18 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The two main xenograft groups found were of bovine origin and of porcine origin. The main histomorphometric outcomes evaluated included new bone percentage (N.B%) and residual graft percentage (R.G%). The mean N.B% for the bovine and porcine groups were 33.46% and 39.63% respectively and the mean R.G% for the bovine and porcine groups were 19.40% and 18.63% respectively. The current evidence suggests that the two main xenograft biomaterials used in ARP procedures after tooth extraction, which are of bovine and porcine origin, displayed effectiveness in producing new bone.
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.