ReviewMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2026
Tenting screw (tent pole) technique in vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 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
purposeProviding an overview on tenting screws/tent-pole technique for space-maintenance in vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation.
methodsThe protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD420251178321). PRISMA-2020 guidelines were applied. Medline via PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library were all searched/screened. Randomized and non-randomized human studies with at least 10 patients were eligible. Random-effects model analysis was used in all cases. The risk of publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and the Egger's test. All statistical analyses were executed using STATA 17.0.
resultsFour randomized, 7 non-randomized and 13 cohort studies were included; 23 were selected for meta-analysis. Overall vertical and horizontal bone gains using tenting screws/tent-pole as the sole space-maintenance technique were at 5.43 mm (95% CI: 3.79-7.07) and 3.62 mm (95% CI: 3.21-4.02), respectively. One-staged augmentations/dental implantation showed significantly higher vertical gain compared to two-staged procedures (P = 0.03). Regarding complementary grafted bone materials/particles, autografts (with/without xenografts) had significantly higher vertical gains than allografts (with/without xenografts) (P = 0.00). Five cohorts compared the outcomes of tenting technique against conventional GBR (with no bone-blocks) in horizontal reconstruction; tenting technique significantly outperformed with 0.49 mm (95% CI: 0.00-0.97) superiority (P = 0.05); GRADE certainty assessment reported as moderate. There were no signs of publication bias in any of the analyses (P = 0.75, P = 0.75, and P = 0.23, respectively).
conclusionsTent-pole technique is desirable for space-maintenance without the complexity and surgical/healing complications of onlay-bone-blocks and titanium meshes. More RCTs are required to reach reliable conclusions.
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.