Synthetic Biomaterials for Alveolar Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence
Bozza B., Pesce P., Baldi D., Bagnasco F., Migliorati M., De Angelis N.
Meta-analysis, published in Materials (Basel) (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Materials (Basel) (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 41374170
- PMCID
- PMC12692858
- DOI
- 10.3390/ma18235328
- Citations
- 1
Abstract (original English)
Background Alveolar bone resorption remains a major challenge in implant and prosthetic rehabilitation. While autologous bone grafts are still considered the gold standard, their biological and surgical limitations have promoted the use of synthetic biomaterials such as biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP), β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite, and bioactive glass. Methods This systematic review, conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, was based on a comprehensive search performed in March 2025 across PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar. A total of 11 clinical studies-including both randomized and non-randomized comparative trials-were identified. Due to the marked heterogeneity of study designs and outcome measures, meta-analysis was not feasible. Reported outcomes focused on bone volume preservation, residual biomaterial, implant stability, histological integration, and postoperative complications. Results Overall, synthetic biomaterials achieved satisfactory bone regeneration and implant stability, with mean bone preservation ranging between 85% and 95%, often comparable to xenografts and other grafting materials. Among the materials analyzed, β-TCP and BCP generally demonstrated superior resorption control and dimensional stability, while bioactive glass showed favorable integration and remodeling rates. The addition of bioactive agents
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.