ReviewMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2025
Descriptive analysis of autologous and xenograft materials for secondary alveolar bone grafting in cleft lip and palate patients: a literature review.
Review in Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate the outcomes of secondary alveolar bone grafting in patients with cleft lip and palate by comparing the clinical effectiveness of autologous bone grafts and xenogeneic graft materials. The objective is to provide evidence-based insight into the comparative efficacy of these grafting approaches. MAIN BODY: A systematic search of the literature published between January 2004 and January 2023 identified 606 studies. Following a series of screening processes, five studies met the inclusion criteria, including only two randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The selected studies specifically evaluated xenogeneic bone graft materials derived from bovine sources, with allograft materials excluded. The results demonstrated no statistically significant difference between autologous and xenograft grafts in terms of postoperative bone graft volume and height in patients with cleft lip and palate. These findings provide important insight into the comparative effectiveness of grafting materials used in secondary alveolar bone grafting.
conclusionsIn summary, the findings indicate that autologous and xenogeneic graft materials yield comparable outcomes in secondary alveolar bone grafting for patients with cleft lip and palate. These results may inform clinical decision-making and guide future research in optimizing grafting strategies.
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.