ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2026
Reuse and recycle: is autogenous tooth graft effective for alveolar ridge preservation?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
a commentary onMahardawi B, Jiaranuchart S, Phrueksotsai C, Panya S, Arunjaroensuk S, Pimkhaokham A. Using autogenous tooth graft for alveolar ridge preservation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2025 Apr 28:S0022-3913(25)00299-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.04.002 .
designA systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to determine if autogenous tooth graft (ATG) was effective at maintaining alveolar ridge dimensions and stimulating bone formation in patient's undergoing exodontia, compared with spontaneous healing or other bone grafting materials. PRISMA guidelines were adhered to, and PICOS were used to develop the search question. CASE SELECTION: Three databases and non-peer-reviewed literature were reviewed independently by two authors. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials comparing ATG with spontaneous healing or other grafting materials in human models. Studies that mixed bone grafting materials were excluded. DATA ANALYSIS: A meta-analysis assessed clinical significance with a 95% confidence interval, using the standardised mean difference to analyse alveolar ridge changes, and mean difference to assess bone regeneration. The random-effect model was applied to all analyses, and the GRADE system was used to determine the level of effect on ridge dimensions.
resultsAfter screening, fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. ATG was found to significantly reduce horizontal ridge resorption compared with ungrafted sockets, but did not perform superiorly compared with other grafting materials. There was a higher percentage of new bone formation at ATG sites, and no evidence that ATG compromised implant placement.
conclusionsATG is a valid alternative to other grafting materials for alveolar ridge preservation and may offer a histological advantage of stimulating more bone formation. Further clinical studies with increased sample size, longer follow-up, and standardised protocols are required to confirm clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41673305What 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.