Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39915466›Full record

ArticleBDJ open2025

Vertical and horizontal bone loss following alveolar socket preservation using bone grafts and autologous platelet concentrates vs bone grafts alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shivang Davda, Rawand Shado, Ines Novo Pereira, David Madruga, Haidar Hassan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BDJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Shivang DavdaRey Juan Carlos University Av. de Atenas, S/N 28922, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain.
Rawand ShadoBarts & The London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University, Institute of Dentistry, Royal London Dental Hospital, Turner Street, London, E1 2AD, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-8157-2292
Ines Novo PereiraFaculdade de Medicina Dentária, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Manuel Pereira da Silva, 4200-393, Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8806-3863
David MadrugaRey Juan Carlos University Av. de Atenas, S/N 28922, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain.
Haidar HassanRey Juan Carlos University Av. de Atenas, S/N 28922, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain. h.hassan@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8192-9916

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocket preservation is a proactive approach that limits bone loss after tooth extraction to maintain adequate bone volume, height and width. Many methods have proven effective in achieving socket preservation, including using various bone grafts and autologous platelet concentrates (APCs). Combining these two methods may lead to improved results in socket preservation and patient outcomes.

aimsTo compare the combined use of APCs and bone grafts in socket preservation, with the use of bone grafts alone. Primary outcomes were radiographic vertical bone loss (VBL) and horizontal bone loss (HBL).

methodsA search on Pubmed, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar databases was conducted to identify human studies using APCs in extraction sockets between January 2014 and August 2024. The inclusion criteria involved comparative human studies ranging from evidence levels II to III (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence). For assessing bias in the included studies, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were used. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the quality of evidence available.

resultsA total of five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the analysis. Studies included the use of platelet rich fibrin (PRF), injectable platelet rich fibrin (i-PRF), advanced platelet rich fibrin (A-PRF), advanced platelet rich fibrin plus (A-PRF+) and concentrated growth factors (CGF). The risk of bias was judged high and moderate for two out of five RCTs. The analysis revealed a combined effect size for VBL reduction, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.83 (p < 0.001; 95% confidence interval (CI) = [-1.2, -0.57]; I² = 73.13%). For HBL reduction, the combined effect size was SMD = -0.72 (p < 0.001; 95% CI = [-1.08, -0.37]; I² = 68.34%). The overall evidence quality rating for the use of APCs in combination with bone grafts to reduce VBL during socket preservation was assessed as moderate, whereas to reduce HBL it was determined to be low.

conclusionThe current literature demonstrates the added benefits of APCs combined with bone grafts in alveolar socket preservation compared to bone grafts alone in reducing vertical and horizontal bone loss. However, based on the GRADE assessment, the quality of evidence was judged low-to-moderate. Further randomised clinical studies would increase the certainty of the evidence.

Identifiers

PMID39915466
PMCPMC11802899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.