Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 May 26;14(11):2858.
doi: 10.3390/ma14112858.

Synthetic Injectable Biomaterials for Alveolar Bone Regeneration in Animal and Human Studies

Affiliations
Review

Synthetic Injectable Biomaterials for Alveolar Bone Regeneration in Animal and Human Studies

Matej Tomas et al. Materials (Basel). .

Abstract

After tooth extraction, the alveolar ridge undergoes dimensional changes. Different bone regeneration biomaterials are used to reduce bone loss. The aim of this article was to systematically review the literature on the effect of injectable synthetic biomaterials and their advantages and disadvantages for new bone formation in the maxilla and mandible in animals and humans. A literature search was conducted in November 2020 via MEDLINE PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. Of the 501 records screened, abstract analysis was performed on 49 articles, resulting in 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Animal studies have shown heterogeneity in terms of animal models, follow-up time, composition of the injectable biomaterial, and different outcome variables such as bone-implant contact, newly formed bone, and peri-implant bone density. Heterogeneity has also been demonstrated by human studies. The following outcomes were observed: newly formed bone, connective tissue, residual injectable bone graft substitute, radiographic density, residual bone height, and different follow-up periods. Further studies, especially in humans, based on the histological and biomechanical properties of the injectable delivery form, are needed to draw more concrete conclusions that will contribute to a better understanding of the benefits of this type of biomaterials and their role in bone regeneration.

Keywords: alloplastic biomaterials; bone regeneration; injectable synthetic bone graft.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of different bone regeneration biomaterials.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Prisma flowchart of search results.

References

    1. Mayer Y., Zigdon-Giladi H., Machtei E.E. Ridge Preservation Using Composite Alloplastic Materials: A Randomized Control Clinical and Histological Study in Humans. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2016;18:1163–1170. doi: 10.1111/cid.12415. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tan W.L., Wong T.L.T., Wong M.C.M., Lang N.P. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012:1–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02375.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Karabuda C., Ozdemir O., Tosun T., Anil A., Olgaç V. Histological and clinical evaluation of 3 different grafting materials for sinus lifting procedure based on 8 cases. J. Periodontol. 2001;72:1436–1442. doi: 10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1436. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Allen F. Bone biology, harvesting and grafting for dental implants: Rationale and clinical applications. Br. Dent. J. 2005;199:59. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4812564. - DOI
    1. Kacarevic Z.P., Kavehei F., Houshmand A., Franke J., Smeets R., Rimashevskiy D., Wenisch S., Schnettler R., Jung O., Barbeck M. Purification processes of xenogeneic bone substitutes and their impact on tissue reactions and regeneration. Int. J. Artif. Organs. 2018;41:789–800. doi: 10.1177/0391398818771530. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources