Dentinal Grafts, a Promising Material for Alveolar Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

TL;DR

Dentinal grafts are a promising alternative to traditional bone grafts for preserving alveolar bone after tooth extraction.

Contribution

This study provides the first systematic review and meta-analysis comparing dentinal grafts to other grafting materials.

Findings

Dentinal grafts increased new bone formation by 12.4% compared to xenografts.

Dentinal grafts left 8.6% less residual material than xenografts.

Dentinal grafts reduced bone loss by 60–75% compared to natural healing.

Abstract

Background: Post-extraction alveolar ridge is an important factor affecting dental implant restoration. Among myriads of bone grafting materials, dentinal grafts are gaining faster popularity among clinicians. Unlike conventional xenografts derived from animal sources, these autogenous materials may offer advantages in terms of biocompatibility and cost. Objective: This article aims to compare their performance with other commonly used materials, like xenografts, or natural blood clots and to examine whether they could maintain bone quality and quantity during socket healing with better properties than the rest of the graft materials in terms of implants success rate. Methods: This search was conducted in multiple medical databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar) for studies published between 2015 and 2025. This search focused exclusively on randomized controlled trials. The study quality was assigned by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, performing statistical pooling of results using random-effects meta-analysis when appropriate. Results: Eight randomized controlled trials involving 249 patients and 281 bone graft sites were selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Dentinal grafts produced significant increase in formation of new bone compared to xenografts (12.4% greater, 95% CI: 6.8–18.0%, p < 0.001). The grafts also resorbed more completely, leaving less foreign material behind (8.6% less residual material, p < 0.001). Importantly, implants placed in bone preserved with dentinal grafts showed comparable stability and success rates to those in bone treated with xenografts. When compared to allowing sockets to heal naturally, dentinal grafts dramatically reduced bone loss by 60–70% horizontally and 65–75% vertically. Remarkably only minor complications were observed (2.2%), with no serious adverse events across all studies. Conclusions: Our analysis indicates that dentinal grafts represent a viable and potentially superior alternative to conventional xenografts for not only preserving alveolar bone after tooth extraction but also in any existing bone defects. The evidence particularly supports using partially demineralized preparations. These materials demonstrate excellent biocompatibility, produce good bone quality, and offer cost advantages.

Figures