ReviewBDJ open2026
Comparative effectiveness of alloplastic and biologic grafts in maxillary sinus augmentation: a systematic review.
Review in BDJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaxillary sinus augmentation is a well-established procedure to increase posterior maxillary bone volume for implant placement. Various graft materials are used, including autografts, allografts, xenografts, and alloplasts, but the clinical performance of alloplasts remains debated. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines to compare histological, histomorphometric, radiographic, and clinical outcomes of sinus lift procedures using different grafts. Electronic searches were conducted in eight databases. Eligible studies were human clinical trials (RCTs, cohorts) comparing at least two graft materials and reporting new bone formation, graft resorption, implant survival, or complications. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS I V2 tool.
resultsAlloplastic grafts demonstrated comparatively lower new bone formation than autogenous and allogeneic grafts, and were generally inferior to xenografts in terms of regenerative potential. They exhibited higher residual graft content, suggesting slower resorption when compared with biologic grafts. In contrast, xenografts and allografts showed more favorable integration. Volumetric outcomes indicated that alloplastic grafts provided better dimensional stability than autografts but were less effective than xenografts in maintaining graft volume and space. Radiographic findings further supported superior space maintenance with xenografts compared to alloplastic grafts. Implant survival rates were high across all graft types; however, biologic grafts demonstrated relatively improved success and lower marginal bone loss compared with alloplastic grafts.
conclusionAutografts demonstrated the highest effectiveness in maxillary sinus augmentation, followed by xenografts and alloplastic grafts, indicating a comparatively lower regenerative potential of alloplastic materials. Nevertheless, alloplastic grafts may still be considered a viable alternative in selected clinical scenarios, particularly where minimizing donor-site morbidity or reducing immunological and infection-related risks is a priority. High-quality, long-term randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings and optimize graft selection.
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.