ReviewBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparative Analysis of the Use of Osteoplastic Materials in Socket Augmentation: A Systematic Review.
Review in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Socket Preservation Technique Using Allogeneic and Xenogeneic Materials: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTooth extraction is often accompanied by bone tissue loss. This systematic review aims to compare osteoplastic materials for socket preservation.
methodsThis systematic review was carried out with the PRISMA statement. To identify relevant studies, a thorough literature search was executed in several databases, such as Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The inclusion criteria were restricted to randomized controlled trials, and their methodological quality was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB 2).
resultsBased on the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine randomized clinical trials published before 2024 were selected for analysis, all of them investigating the application of osteoplastic materials. Six studies performed xenogenic bone augmentation; one of them compared alloplastic and xenogenic materials; two studies described synthetic osteoplastic materials; and one described autogenic bone material.
conclusionSocket augmentation with osteoplastic materials demonstrates effectiveness in preserving alveolar ridge dimensions and creating favorable conditions for further implant placement, though differences in clinical performance highlight the need for careful material selection.
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.