ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
The ability of different forms of autogenous tooth graft to promote bone regeneration: a network meta-analysis.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Geometry-Dependent Osteogenic Performance of Demineralized Dentin Matrix as a Carrier for rhBMP-2.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of autogenous tooth vs. autogenous bone grafts on periodontal phenotype around immediate implants: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry · 2026Article
- Comparative effectiveness of autologous particulate dentin graft for alveolar ridge preservation: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC oral health · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSeveral forms of autogenous tooth graft have been presented. However, it is still unclear which form provides better bone formation and is the best to use clinically. This network meta-analysis aimed to thoroughly evaluate the available literature on the ability of different forms of the autogenous tooth graft to promote bone regeneration, in order to explore if any specific type or method of processing would result in better overall outcomes.
methodsMEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases were searched, to find randomized clinical trials, published up to November 29, 2023, which compared two forms of autogenous tooth graft or any form of this material with other bone grafts or with empty sockets and reported the percentage of bone formation in the grafted sites.
resultsOf 1129 articles found, nine were included. The outcomes of this meta-analysis indicated that demineralized dentin, demineralized root with BMP-2 and undemineralized tooth all showed significantly higher bone formation, compared to xenograft; Mean difference (MD) = 23.25, 95% Confidence interval (CI) = 7.42 to 39.08, MD = 17.09, 95% CI = 4.03 to 30.15, and MD = 12.40, 95% CI = 5.64 to 19.16, respectively. Following the GRADE system, the level of evidence was judged to be low/very low.
conclusionChoosing the undemineralized tooth could be a better option than other forms of this material, considering the complexity, time, and cost of the other forms of autogenous tooth graft. Nevertheless, future investigations with more direct comparisons are highly needed, considering the small number of included studies and the low level of evidence obtained from this meta-analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39828816What 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.