Efficacy of alveolar ridge preservation with xenografts and resorbable socket sealing materials in the esthetic region: A systematic review with meta‐analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The present systematic review aimed to identify and summarize the clinical, radiographic, and histological outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation using bone xenografts and absorbable sealing materials compared with spontaneous healing in the esthetic zone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) fulfilling specific eligibility criteria were included. Two review authors independently searched for eligible studies, extracted data from the published reports and performed the risk of bias assessment (RoB 2 tool). Study results were summarized using random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Thirteen articles concerning 10 RCTs were included, involving a total of 357 participants. Most of studies were considered as "low" risk of bias. Meta-analyses indicated less horizontal (difference in means-MD = 1.88 mm; p < 0.001), vertical mid-buccal (MD = 1.84 mm; p < 0.001) and vertical mid-lingual (MD = 2.27 mm; p < 0.001) bone resorption in alveolar ridge preservation compared to spontaneous healing as assessed clinically. Bone changes assessed radiographically showed consistent results in terms of horizontal (at 1 mm: MD = 1.84 mm, p < 0.001), vertical mid-buccal (MD = 0.95 mm; p < 0.001) and mid-lingual (MD = 0.62 mm; p = 0.05) resorption. Part of the bone resorption in the spontaneous healing group was compensated by soft-tissues, since the observed differences between groups in linear ridge reduction evaluated through cast models superimposition were smaller (MD = 0.52 mm; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Alveolar ridge preservation with xenogeneic bone substitutes and non-autogenous resorbable socket sealing materials is efficacious in reducing post-extraction bone and ridge changes in the esthetic region.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".