SynthesisFrontiers in oral health2026
Component network meta-analysis of scaffold materials, platelet-rich fibrin and barrier membranes for alveolar ridge preservation.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oral health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) involves the use of multiple treatment components, including scaffold materials, platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) adjuncts, and barrier membranes. However, conventional meta-analyses generally evaluate complete treatment protocols and cannot determine the independent contribution of individual components. This study aimed to investigate the component-level effects of ARP interventions using component network meta-analysis (CNMA). Methods: Randomized controlled trials evaluating ARP after tooth extraction in adults were identified from PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to July 2026. Complete treatment strategies were initially compared using random-effects network meta-analysis. Subsequently, interventions were decomposed into scaffold, PRF, and barrier membrane components for additive and interaction CNMA. The primary outcomes were horizontal ridge-width change and buccal vertical ridge-height change. Results: Thirty-one randomized controlled trials were included. Standard network meta-analysis demonstrated that several scaffold- and membrane-containing strategies were associated with reduced ridge dimensional loss compared with natural healing. In additive CNMA for horizontal ridge-width change, barrier membrane showed the largest estimated component effect (MD, -1.31 mm; 95% CI, -2.18 to -0.44), followed by allograft (MD, -0.77 mm; 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.38) and PRF adjunct (MD, -0.40 mm; 95% CI, -0.66 to -0.14). Interaction analyses did not demonstrate convincing evidence that the effect of PRF varied according to scaffold type, although estimates were limited by imprecision. Conclusions: This component network meta-analysis suggests that the effects of alveolar ridge preservation are associated with the combined contribution of individual treatment components rather than complete treatment packages alone. Barrier membranes and allograft components showed relatively favorable component-level estimates for horizontal ridge-width preservation, whereas PRF showed a smaller incremental effect. However, these findings should not be interpreted as definitive evidence of superiority over other regenerative components, given network inconsistency, sparse evidence for some components, and the low or very low certainty of several component-level estimates.
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.