ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2025
Bacterial colonization of bone substitute materials used in oral surgery: mechanisms, clinical implications, and preventive strategies-A narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metal-Substituted Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles as Antimicrobial and Osteogenic Biomaterials for Hard-Tissue Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Three-dimensionally printed mesoporous bioactive glass for craniomaxillofacial bone regeneration: Material evolution, functional mechanisms, and clinical translation.Cell transplantationReview
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
The advancement of tissue engineering and the development of novel biomaterials have opened new possibilities for the effective treatment of patients with edentulism and other dental deficiencies, as well as for the prosthetic reconstruction and functional rehabilitation of the stomatognathic system. Bone substitute materials are now widely used in orthopedics, reconstructive surgery, and dentistry to support the regeneration of bone tissue lost due to trauma, inflammation, or tooth extraction. However, surgical procedures within the oral cavity inherently carry a risk of postoperative infection, which can impair healing and compromise treatment outcomes. Unlike natural bone regeneration, bone healing following grafting functions as a repair process that may involve partial resorption of the graft material. Such bone deficiencies can hinder prosthetic reconstruction, making the use of bone substitute materials essential for guided bone regeneration. Bone substitutes can be classified as autogenous, allogenic, xenogenic, or alloplastic, each exhibiting distinct osteoinductive and osteoconductive properties. This review discusses the biological and clinical characteristics of these material groups, with particular attention to their susceptibility to colonization by bacterial strains commonly found in the human oral cavity. It also highlights the risks associated with bacterial biofilm formation and examines its implications for the oral microbiome under dysbiotic conditions.
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.