Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

The effects of sodium alendronate on socket healing after tooth extraction: a systematic review of animal studies

Chavarry NGM., Abreu PVB., Feres-Filho EJ., Pereira DMT., Maia LC., Molon RS.

Meta-analysis on Chronic Wound, published in Braz Oral Res (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Meta-analysis
Journal
Braz Oral Res (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
38747825
PMCID
PMC11376628
DOI
10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0038

Abstract (original English)

The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following question: "Does alendronate, a nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, improve or impair alveolar socket healing after tooth extraction in animal models"? To this end, a systematic review of the literature was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, as well as in the gray literature up to May 2023. Preclinical studies that evaluated alveolar healing after tooth extraction and the intake of sodium alendronate compared with placebo were included. Two investigators were responsible for screening the articles independently, extracting the data, and assessing their quality through the SYRCLE's RoB tool for randomized trials in animal studies. The study selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in studies, impact of alendronate on bone healing, and certainty of evidence were described in text and table formats. Methodological differences among the studies were restricted to the synthesis methods. The synthesis of qualitative results followed the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline. From the 19 included studies, five were considered to have low risk, three were of unclear risk, and eleven presented a high risk of bias. The studies were considered heterogeneous regarding alendronate posology, including its dosage and route of administration. Furthermore, a variety of animal spec

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence
Tooth SocketAnimalsAlendronateTooth ExtractionWound HealingBone Density Conservation Agents

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research