SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2026
Resorbable scaffolds for alveolar ridge augmentation procedures: A systematic review.
Synthesis in International journal of implant 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of resorbable scaffolds for bone augmentation of alveolar bone defects.
methodsA specific PICO question was formulated: In partially or fully edentulous patients requiring alveolar ridge augmentation (P), how do resorbable scaffolds (I), compared with non-resorbable devices (e.g., titanium meshes) or conventional bone augmentation techniques (C), perform in terms of clinical outcomes including bone gain, implant loss and success, and complication rates (O)? A PubMed/MEDLINE electronic search was conducted to identify clinical studies published until December 2025. No restrictions on publication date were imposed, and only studies published in the English language were considered. Selected studies were all studies on humans using resorbable devices for alveolar ridge augmentation; in vivo and in vitro studies were excluded. Study characteristics, operative techniques, materials, and clinical outcomes including complications, bone augmentation techniques, implant stability, survival and success rates were extracted and analyzed. Resorbable materials evaluated included polylactide (PLA), polycaprolactone (PCL), Polylactic Acid-Polyglycolic Acid (PLGA), and beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP).
resultsA total of 3704 articles were found, but only 7 studies met the pre-established inclusion criteria and were considered suitable for analysis. These studies included 39 patients and 45 edentulous ridges. Implant loss was only reported in one study. Complications occurred in three studies, with graft loss in 5 cases. Primary implant stability values averaged 35Ncm. Degradation time is an important determinant, but remains insufficiently studied/evaluated in the included evidence base.
conclusionsResorbable scaffolds seem to represent viable alternatives to conventional bone grafting approache. Customized scaffolds may offer additional esthetic advantages. However, larger randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up periods and standardized outcome measures-including CBCT-based volumetric and linear bone gain, clearly defined complication categories, and implant-related outcomes such as stability, survival, and success-are required to enable robust evidence-based clinical recommendations.
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.