Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40951319›Full record

SynthesisF1000Research2025

Comparison of xenograft and allograft bone graft for oral and maxillofacial surgical preparation prior to dental implantation: A systematic review.

Azza A Abushama, Nourelhoda Alim, Ahmad Mohammed AlTuraiki, Turki Thaar AlQahtani, Noura Turki Alotaibi, Monerah Mohammed AlQahtani, Nwaf Mohammad AlQahtani

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in F1000Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07444970 (Comparative Evaluation of Xenograft Alone and Sticky Bone in Sinus Lift With Concurrent Implant Placement), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT07444970 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Comparative Evaluation of Xenograft Alone and Sticky Bone in Sinus Lift With Concurrent Implant Placement: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorFayoum UniversityRan2026 to 2027Enrolled18ConditionsSinus Lifting, Dental Implant, Sticky BoneArmsSticky bone, traditional xenograft
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

7 authors.

Azza A AbushamaDepartment of Preventive Dental Sciences, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Riyadh Province, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0655-0404
Nourelhoda AlimDepartment of Surgical and Diagnostic Sciences,, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Riyadh Province, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4499-9656
Ahmad Mohammed AlTuraikiAdvanced Education in General Dentistry, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Riyadh Province, Saudi Arabia.
Turki Thaar AlQahtaniAdvanced Education in General Dentistry, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Riyadh Province, Saudi Arabia.
Noura Turki AlotaibiAdvanced Education in General Dentistry, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Riyadh Province, Saudi Arabia.
Monerah Mohammed AlQahtaniAdvanced Education in General Dentistry, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Riyadh Province, Saudi Arabia.
Nwaf Mohammad AlQahtaniKing Khalid University, Abha, Aseer Province, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The implantation of teeth by using dental implants can necessitate the use of bone grafting through xenograft and allograft to increase bone density in the place to induce the integration with the hard tissue. The most commonly used xenografts are usually bovine or porcine and are used in oral and maxillofacial surgery and allografts are those that are taken from the human cadaveric tissue. Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare clinical usefulness of xenografts and allografts utilized in the front of dental implant placement in adult individuals experiencing oral and maxillofacial surgical procedure. Method: The systematic search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library (2016 2024) on terms: bone graft AND (xenograft OR allograft) AND dental implant was used. The studies of adults using human xenografts versus allografts in English and published in English were included. Studies that use chemotherapy, cancer, heavy smoking, autografts, and use of animal models were avoided. The quality of studies was estimated with the Cochrane tool by two reviewers who screened and evaluated it. Result: 12 of the 340 studies that included 395 patients (mean age 40-46; 29.9% male, 70.1% female) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Bovine allografts (41.9%) and bovine xenografts (58.1%) were among the grafts utilized. Alveolar ridge preservation (3), delayed (2), immediate (6), and sinus augmentation (2) were among the procedures. The sinus floor, premolars, anterior maxilla, and posterior mandible were frequently used as graft sites. A lack of demographic diversity and small sample sizes were among the limitations. The buccal wall dehiscence and aesthetics in anterior sites require more research. Conclusion: According to the findings of this systematic review, the advantages of synthetic xenografts like Bio-Oss and synthetic allografts like PerioGlas are exactly the same.

Indexed as

AllograftsBone TransplantationDental ImplantationHeterograftsAdultAnimalsCattleDental ImplantsFemaleHumansMaleSwineTransplantation, HeterologousTransplantation, HomologousDental Implantsallograftdental implant.Keywords: bone graftsinus augmentationxenograft

Identifiers

PMID40951319
PMCPMC12423620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.