Comparative Analysis of the Use of Osteoplastic Materials in Socket Augmentation: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background: Tooth extraction is often accompanied by bone tissue loss. This systematic review aims to compare osteoplastic materials for socket preservation.

Methods: This systematic review was carried out with the PRISMA statement. To identify relevant studies, a thorough literature search was executed in several databases, such as Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The inclusion criteria were restricted to randomized controlled trials, and their methodological quality was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB 2).

Results: Based on the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine randomized clinical trials published before 2024 were selected for analysis, all of them investigating the application of osteoplastic materials. Six studies performed xenogenic bone augmentation; one of them compared alloplastic and xenogenic materials; two studies described synthetic osteoplastic materials; and one described autogenic bone material.

Conclusion: Socket augmentation with osteoplastic materials demonstrates effectiveness in preserving alveolar ridge dimensions and creating favorable conditions for further implant placement, though differences in clinical performance highlight the need for careful material selection.

Keywords: alveolar bone loss; augmentation; biocompatibility; biomaterials; bone regeneration; bone remodeling; bone repair; bone resorption; bone substitute; guided bone regeneration; socket preservation; systematic review; tooth socket.

Figure 1

Flow diagram describing the selection process according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations [27].