Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42639343›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of dentistry2026

Optimizing Alveolar Ridge Preservation and GBR: A Systematic Review of Membranes, Grafts, and Soft Tissue Strategies for Personalized Care.

Angelo Michele Inchingolo, Grazia Marinelli, Pietro Lauria, Pierluigi Marotti, Silvia Chieppa, Francesco Inchingolo, Andrea Palermo, Massimo Del Fabbro, Alessio Danilo Inchingolo, Gianna Dipalma

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Angelo Michele InchingoloDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari 70124, Italy, uniba.it.
Grazia MarinelliDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari 70124, Italy, uniba.it.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9163-2350
Pietro LauriaDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari 70124, Italy, uniba.it.
Pierluigi MarottiDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari 70124, Italy, uniba.it.
Silvia ChieppaDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari 70124, Italy, uniba.it.
Francesco InchingoloDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari 70124, Italy, uniba.it.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3797-5883
Andrea PalermoDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Salento, Lecce 73100, Italy, unisalento.it.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3288-490X
Massimo Del FabbroDepartment of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Milano University, Milan 20122, Italy, unimi.it.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7144-0984
Alessio Danilo InchingoloDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari 70124, Italy, uniba.it.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6366-1039
Gianna DipalmaDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari 70124, Italy, uniba.it.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5947-8987

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Alveolar bone loss following tooth extraction remains one of the main challenges in implant dentistry. To counteract the physiological resorption that occurs post-extraction, regenerative techniques such as alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and guided bone regeneration (GBR) have been developed. These approaches use bone graft materials and barrier membranes to preserve or restore alveolar architecture, facilitating optimal implant placement. Objective: This systematic review aims to critically evaluate the most relevant and methodologically robust clinical studies comparing the effectiveness of ARP and GBR techniques. Specific attention is given to membrane types, graft materials, surgical timing, and soft tissue management strategies, assessing their impact on biological, functional, and esthetic outcomes. Methods: Fourteen high-quality randomized controlled trials were selected and analyzed. Key outcome measures included vertical and horizontal bone gain, implant survival rates, soft tissue stability, postoperative complications, and patient-reported satisfaction. Results: Modern resorbable membranes demonstrate comparable bone regeneration outcomes to nonresorbable ones, while minimizing surgical invasiveness. Titanium mesh offers superior bone gain in complex defects but is associated with a higher complication rate. Early intervention may improve outcomes. The choice of graft material influences both osteogenic potential and structural stability. However, generalizability is limited by small sample sizes, short follow-up periods, and exclusion of patients with systemic comorbidities. Conclusions: Successful alveolar regeneration requires a personalized treatment approach, considering defect morphology and individual patient characteristics. Future research should prioritize larger, long-term, multicenter studies that include real-world patient populations to support the development of more predictive and patient-centered clinical protocols.

Indexed as

alveolar ridge preservationbone graft materialsguided bone regenerationimplant stabilitypost-extraction resorptionregenerative protocolsresorbable membranessoft tissue managementsurgical timing

Identifiers

PMID42639343
PMCPMC13501259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.