ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2026
Alveolar Ridge Preservation in Posterior Extraction Sockets: A Literature Review and Proposal of a Novel Therapeutic Classification.
Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is a critical procedure used to maintain post-extraction socket dimensions and the residual bone morphology is a key determinant of surgical outcomes. However, existing classification systems predominantly focus on the timing of implant placement rather than ARP protocols. Limited studies have developed classifications specifically for ARP, and none have addressed the unique anatomical challenges of posterior extraction sockets. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus from January 2000 to June 2025. Keywords such as "extraction socket", "tooth socket", and "classification" were used to evaluate existing classification systems. Results: The existing classification systems primarily target timing selection for implant placement in the anterior zone. To date, only three studies have developed classification systems specifically for ARP, all of which fail to differentiate between anterior and posterior sites despite their distinct resorption patterns. Therefore, based on a synthesis of existing literature and clinical rationale, we propose a novel classification system specifically designed for posterior extraction sockets in the context of ARP. Type A sockets are characterized by one compromised wall with a vertical defect of less than 50%, while Type B involves one compromised wall with a vertical defect of no less than 50%. Type C extraction sockets are severely damaged and involve two compromised walls. For each type, specific ARP techniques were recommended, with varying levels of intervention required for optimal ridge preservation. Conclusion: This study introduces a novel classification system specifically for posterior extraction sockets tailored for ARP procedure. Although the system enhances clinical decision-making, further clinical validation is required to confirm its applicability and effectiveness in practice.
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.