ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2026
Bone Substitutes in Alveolar Ridge Augmentation: A Narrative Literature Review.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defect-Adapted Guided Bone Regeneration of the Atrophic Edentulous Maxilla Using a PRGF-Enriched Autogenous Bone/ABBM Composite: A Prospective One-Year Case Series.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Human Amniotic Epithelial Stem Cells and Osteoblast Cells Behavior on Collagen Membranes for Bone Guided Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adequate alveolar bone volume is a prerequisite for predictable and long-term success in dental implant therapy. Physiological post-extraction remodeling frequently results in horizontal and vertical ridge deficiencies, which may compromise optimal implant placement. Guided bone regeneration (GBR) has become a cornerstone procedure in implant dentistry, with clinical outcomes largely influenced by the biological and mechanical characteristics of grafting materials. Different bone grafts and their combinations are currently clinically applicable, each exhibiting distinct osteogenic, osteoinductive, and osteoconductive properties, as well as varying resorption profiles and volumetric stability. This narrative review aims to analyze the biological principles of alveolar ridge augmentation, compare the properties of commonly used graft materials, evaluate clinical outcomes, and discuss emerging regenerative strategies. Literature published between 2000 and 2025 was assessed to synthesize current evidence regarding graft integration, bone formation, desorption dynamics, and clinical indications. Autogenous bone remains the gold standard due to its combined osteogenic, osteoinductive, and osteoconductive potential; however, its limitations have driven the development of alternative materials, including allografts, xenografts, alloplastic substitutes, demineralized tooth matrices, platelet concentrates, and customized scaffolds. While no single material is universally ideal, appropriate selection based on defect characteristics and clinical objectives is essential for predictable outcomes. Future research should prioritize long-term comparative trials, biomaterial standardization, and biologically enhanced regenerative approaches.
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.