Evidence Hub

Clinical comparison of xenograft versus synthetic bone graft materials in micro crestal flap-alveolar ridge preservation following extraction of molars

Zhang S, Liu J, Xu T, Hu W, Zhang H, Wei Y

Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences, 2026

14 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes between xenogeneic bone graft materials primarily composed of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and synthetic bone graft materials primarily composed of hydroxyapatite (HA) used in micro crestal flap-alveolar ridge preservation (MCF-ARP) of periodontally compromised molars, so as to provide a reference for their application and promotion.

METHODS: In this retrospective case series study, patients who received treatment between October 2024 and April 2025 were enrolled. All the patients underwent MCF-ARP, using either DBBM or HA. Hard tissue changes and alveolar ridge contour collapse were evaluated and compared between the two groups preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral scanning. Soft tissue healing process after the surgery was also assessed.

RESULTS: A total of 14 molars from 14 patients were included. No significant differences were found in hard tissue changes between the two groups 6 months after the surgery (P>0.05). Two weeks and 1 month postoperatively, the vertical collapse of the contour at the ridge center was significantly greater in the HA group compared with the DBBM group [2 weeks: (2.73±1.89) mm vs. (0.00±0.79) mm, P 0.05). In terms of wound healing, the HA group showed a significantly higher percentage of wound area lacking keratinized tissue coverage compared with the DBBM group both 2 weeks and 1 month after the surgery (2 weeks: 47.88%±6.56%…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 14 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free