ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2026
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Socket Preservation Technique Using Allogeneic and Xenogeneic Materials: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe socket preservation technique involves filling the bone defect that occurs after a tooth is extracted with bone substitute material. This procedure helps to minimize bone resorption of the alveolar ridge following extraction. Various bone substitute biomaterials can be used for augmentation, including autogenous, allogeneic, and xenogeneic options. This study aimed to assess changes in alveolar ridge dimensions and variations in radiographic bone density in sockets grafted with two distinct biomaterials. Furthermore, bone biopsies collected from the grafted sites were subjected to histological analysis.
methodsForty generally healthy patients were enrolled in the study and split into four equal groups. The first and third groups underwent first or second maxillary premolar extraction and received treatment with an allogeneic material (BIOBank®, Biobank, Paris, France), while the second and fourth groups underwent first or second mandibular molar extraction and were treated with a xenogeneic material (Geistlich Bio-Oss®, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland). Following tooth extraction, the appropriate biomaterial was inserted into the socket. It was covered with a collagen membrane (Geistlich Bio-Gide®, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) and stabilized with sutures, which were removed seven to ten days after the procedure. Micro-CBCT scans were conducted to evaluate the dimensions of the alveolar ridge and the radiographic density of the grafted socket at 7-10 days and 6 months after the procedure. A bone trepanobiopsy was performed concurrently with implant placement six months after socket preservation. The obtained biopsy was analyzed histologically using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and Masson's trichrome staining.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in alveolar ridge height or width preservation between allogeneic and xenogeneic biomaterials. After six months of healing, sockets grafted with both materials exhibited greater radiographic bone density, with significantly greater density observed in the xenograft group.
conclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that the two biomaterials are comparable in their effectiveness at maintaining the dimensions of the alveolar ridge. However, the quality of the newly formed bone may differ 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.