ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Synthetic Biomaterials for Alveolar Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in Regenerative Dentistry: From Biological Mechanisms to Clinical Translation.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Descriptive Histological and Histomorphometrical Comparison of Four Xenogeneic and Synthetic Bone Blocks for Mandibular Onlay Augmentation in Rabbits.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Comparative Histological and Histomorphometric Analysis of Xenografts and Synthetic Biomaterials in Rabbit Sinus Floor Elevation.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Bone Remodeling Dynamics and Bone Vitality Following Standard Bone Augmentation Procedures: A Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of β-TriCalcium Phosphate for Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Systematic Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Post-Market Non-Controlled Study on the Clinical Safety of a Synthetic Calcium Phosphate Ceramic in Alveolar Bone Regeneration: A 6-Month Prospective Study.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlveolar bone resorption remains a major challenge in implant and prosthetic rehabilitation. While autologous bone grafts are still considered the gold standard, their biological and surgical limitations have promoted the use of synthetic biomaterials such as biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP), β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite, and bioactive glass.
methodsThis systematic review, conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, was based on a comprehensive search performed in March 2025 across PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar. A total of 11 clinical studies-including both randomized and non-randomized comparative trials-were identified. Due to the marked heterogeneity of study designs and outcome measures, meta-analysis was not feasible. Reported outcomes focused on bone volume preservation, residual biomaterial, implant stability, histological integration, and postoperative complications.
resultsOverall, synthetic biomaterials achieved satisfactory bone regeneration and implant stability, with mean bone preservation ranging between 85% and 95%, often comparable to xenografts and other grafting materials. Among the materials analyzed, β-TCP and BCP generally demonstrated superior resorption control and dimensional stability, while bioactive glass showed favorable integration and remodeling rates. The addition of bioactive agents such as rhBMP-2, rhPDGF-BB, or platelet-rich plasma further enhanced new bone formation.
conclusionsWithin the limits of current evidence, synthetic biomaterials show clinical performance comparable to xenografts, particularly in socket preservation and ridge augmentation procedures. Their predictable handling, absence of donor-site morbidity, and potential for bioactive enhancement make them valuable tools for routine clinical use. Larger, standardized trials with long-term follow-up are needed to validate these findings and refine material selection in alveolar bone regeneration.
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.