ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparative effectiveness of autologous particulate dentin graft for alveolar ridge preservation: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Geometry-Dependent Osteogenic Performance of Demineralized Dentin Matrix as a Carrier for rhBMP-2.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2026Article
- Physicochemical Stability of Dentin-Derived Biomaterials During Long-Term Storage.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Reuse and recycle: is autogenous tooth graft effective for alveolar ridge preservation?Evidence-based dentistry · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis network meta-analysis (NMA) rigorously assessed the regenerative potential of autologous particulate dentin graft (ADG) in the context of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), comparatively analyzing its performance against particulate xenogeneic (XG), allogeneic (ALG), alloplastic (APG) grafts, and blood clot healing (BCH). MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive review was undertaken utilizing recognized databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Central Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP database) from 2015 to 2024, registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024572610). This NMA assessed radiographic parameters of alveolar ridges, measuring coronal width, buccal height, and lingual height, and evaluated new bone formation via histomorphometric analysis. Utilizing the random effects model to assess the efficacy of treatments, while the quality of the studies was evaluated using the ROB2 and GRADE criteria.
results25 randomized controlled trials involving 710 patients and 830 tooth extraction sites were conducted. Both ADG and XG significantly preserved alveolar ridge volume compared to BCH. Specifically, ADG (MD = 1.67; 95% CI: 0.81, 2.54, P < 0.001) and XG (MD = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.20, 1.65, P = 0.012) demonstrated superior preservation of coronal alveolar ridge width change, with ADG showing an advantage over XG (MD = -0.75; 95% CI: -1.45, -0.05, P = 0.035). Similarly, both ADG (MD = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.21, 1.08, P = 0.004) and XG (MD = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.04, P < 0.001) significantly maintained and buccal and lingual alveolar ridge height change compared to BCH.
conclusionsADG effectively preserves alveolar ridge volume while demonstrating comparable new bone formation profiles with conventional bone graft substitutes.
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.