# Clinical Evidence on Resorbable Calcium Phosphate Biomaterials for Alveolar Bone Regeneration: A Scoping Review Focusing on Brushite, Monetite, and Tricalcium Phosphates

## TL;DR

This review maps clinical evidence for resorbable calcium phosphate biomaterials like brushite and monetite in alveolar bone regeneration, finding limited but promising results.

## Contribution

The study provides a first scoping review of clinical evidence for brushite- and monetite-based biomaterials in alveolar bone regeneration.

## Key findings

- Brushite- and monetite-based materials showed new bone formation and progressive graft resorption in clinical scenarios.
- Study heterogeneity prevents direct comparisons of clinical effectiveness between materials.
- Current evidence supports biocompatibility but highlights the need for standardized trials.

## Abstract

Background: While hydroxyapatite (HA) is considered stable and non-resorbable, other calcium phosphate phases such as Tricalcium Phosphate (TCP), Brushite, and Monetite are characterized by higher solubility and biodegradation rates. This review aims to map the clinical evidence of these resorbable phases. Objective: The aim of this scoping review was to map and synthesize the available clinical evidence on resorbable calcium phosphate phases, focusing on TCP-, brushite-, and monetite-based biomaterials in alveolar bone regeneration. The review evaluates clinical indications, surgical protocols, reported outcomes, and existing knowledge gaps. Methods: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and SCI Clarivate databases without language or time restrictions (from June 2025 to August 2025) using terms related to brushite, monetite, dicalcium phosphate anhydrous, ridge augmentation, bone regeneration, and dental implants. Clinical studies involving brushite- or monetite-based biomaterials used for alveolar bone regeneration were eligible, including randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and case series. Data were charted descriptively with respect to study design, patient characteristics, clinical scenario, biomaterials used, surgical approach, healing time, outcome measures, and reported complications. No meta-analysis or formal assessment of comparative clinical effectiveness was undertaken, in line with scoping review methodology. Results: Seven clinical studies were included. The identified evidence encompassed heterogeneous clinical scenarios, including post-extraction alveolar ridge preservation, localized ridge augmentation, and periodontal or intraosseous defects with relevance to future implant placement. Study designs, defect characteristics, biomaterial formulations, and outcome measures varied substantially. Across studies, brushite- and monetite-based materials were associated with new bone formation and progressive graft resorption, as assessed by clinical, radiographic, and histological outcomes. Direct comparisons between studies were not feasible due to methodological and clinical heterogeneity. Conclusions: The available literature on brushite- and monetite-based biomaterials in alveolar bone regeneration is limited and heterogeneous. Current evidence supports their biocompatibility and resorbable nature across different clinical contexts, but does not allow conclusions regarding comparative clinical effectiveness. This scoping review highlights important gaps in the literature, particularly the need for well-designed randomized clinical trials with standardized indications and outcome measures.