Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40488975›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2025

Comparative evaluation of porcine and bovine bone xenografts in bone grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kun Wang, Jiatong Zhang, Mengyao Ding, Yifan Xie, Yan Wang, Chuyi Jin, Mengqing Yan, Lipei Liu, Cheng Ding, Xing Chen

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Bone Grafts: Everything You Need to Know.Journal of periodontal research · 2026
    Review
  6. 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

10 authors.

Kun Wang *Stomatology Center, Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310015, China.
Jiatong Zhang *Stomatology Center, Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310015, China.
Mengyao DingStomatology Center, Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310015, China.
Yifan XieStomatology Center, Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310015, China.
Yan WangStomatology Center, Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310015, China.
Chuyi JinStomatology Center, Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310015, China.
Mengqing YanStomatology Center, Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310015, China.
Lipei LiuStomatology Center, Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310015, China.
Cheng DingStomatology Center, Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310015, China.
Xing ChenStomatology Center, Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310015, China. 316679138@qq.com.

Funding

Guided Project of Science and Technology of Hangzhou 20211231Y028Hangzhou Biological Medicine and Health Industry Development Support Science and Technology Project 2021WJCY131Hangzhou Biological Medicine and Health Industry Development Support Science and Technology Project 2023WJC034Health and Science Project of Hangzhou A20210056Zhejiang Science and Technology Program of Chinese Medicine 2024ZL724
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the efficacy of porcine bone xenografts (PBX) and bovine bone xenografts (BBX) in maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), focusing on histomorphometric and radiographic outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsA comprehensive online search for relevant studies was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus, including literature published up to April 2025 (PROSPERO CRD42024628683). The percentage of newly formed bone (NFB) served as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included histomorphometric results such as residual bone graft (RBG) and connective tissue (CT), as well as radiographic results, including vertical height reduction, horizontal width reduction, and volume reduction.

resultsOut of 577 initially identified records, 10 studies were included. The analysis included 239 sites grafted with BBX (51 in MSFA, 188 in ARP) and 213 sites with PBX (51 in MSFA, 162 in ARP). A total of 6 studies reported data on NFB across 202 grafted sites (101 PBX, 101 BBX). The meta-analysis found no significant difference in NFB between PBX and BBX (WMD = 1.5, 95% CI: −1.46 to 4.46; p = 0.321), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 44.6%). For each secondary outcome, no statistically significant difference was shown between the two groups.

conclusionThis systematic review found no significant differences in histomorphometric and radiographic outcomes between PBX and BBX in bone grafting (MSFA/ARP), supporting the clinical comparability of PBX as an alternative to BBX. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes such as implant survival, graft resorption, and bone stability. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Alveolar Ridge AugmentationBone TransplantationHeterograftsSinus Floor AugmentationAnimalsCattleHumansSwineAlveolar ridge preservationBone substitutesMaxillary sinus floor augmentationXenograft

Identifiers

PMID40488975
PMCPMC12149069

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.