ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2026
The potential of eggshell membrane in bone regeneration: a scoping review of applications and advances.
Review in The Saudi dental journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eggshell membrane (ESM) is a naturally derived biomaterial with potential applications in bone regeneration and guided bone regeneration (GBR) because of its extracellular matrix-like structure and bioactive composition. This scoping review aimed to map the current evidence regarding the use of ESM and its derivatives in bone regeneration and regenerative dentistry. This review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science were searched for English-language studies published between January 2019 and August 2025. Studies investigating ESM in in vitro, in vivo, or clinical regenerative models were included. Data extraction and methodological quality overview were performed independently by two reviewers. Results were synthesized descriptively. Of 280 identified records, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 9 in vivo studies, 3 in vitro studies, and 1 clinical study. Various ESM formulations were evaluated, including native, modified, mineralized, soluble, and composite systems. Overall, ESM-based materials demonstrated favorable biocompatibility, osteogenic potential, angiogenic activity, and support for bone healing and osseointegration. Modified ESM systems generally showed superior regenerative performance compared with native ESM. The only clinical study reported improved socket healing, increased bone density, and reduced postoperative pain when ESM was combined with advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF). Methodological limitations included heterogeneity of study designs, limited standardization, and scarcity of clinical evidence. Current evidence suggests that ESM is a promising biomaterial for bone regeneration and GBR applications. However, further standardized and well-designed clinical studies are necessary to confirm its long-term safety, efficacy, and clinical applicability.
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.