ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Socket Preservation Technique Using Allogeneic and Xenogeneic Materials-A Preliminary Study.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07565558 (Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Socket Preservation Technique Using Allogeneic and Xenogeneic Materials), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Socket Preservation Technique Using Allogeneic and Xenogeneic Materials
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Partially demineralized allogeneic cancellous bone plug versus deproteinized bovine bone mineral for guided bone regeneration: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Socket Preservation Technique Using Allogeneic and Xenogeneic Materials: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe socket preservation technique involves filling the bone defect created after tooth extraction with a bone substitute material. This helps to reduce bone resorption of the post-extraction alveolar ridge. Various types of bone substitute biomaterials are used as augmentation materials, including autogeneic, allogeneic, and xenogeneic materials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in alveolar ridge dimensions and alterations of optical bone density in sockets grafted with two different biomaterials. Additionally, bone biopsies taken from the grafted sites underwent histological evaluation.
methodsThis study enrolled 10 generally healthy patients, who were divided into two equal groups. Patients in the first group were treated with an allogeneic material (BIOBank
resultsThe results showed that the allogeneic material was more effective in preserving alveolar buccal height and was probably more rapidly transformed into the patient's own bone. Sockets grafted with the xenogeneic material presented higher optical bone density after six months. Both materials presented similar effectiveness in alveolar width preservation.
conclusionsBased on the outcomes of this study, it can be concluded that both materials are suitable for the socket preservation technique. However, the dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge and the quality of the newly formed bone may vary depending on the type of biomaterial used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.