Home  |  About JAPTR |  Editorial board  |  Search |  Ahead of print  |  Current issue  |  Archives |  Submit article  |  Instructions  |  Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |Login 
Users Online: 407   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

 Table of Contents  
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 46-50  

Biomaterial selection for bone augmentation in implant dentistry: A systematic review

1 Student, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Periodontics, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Private Practitioner, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Date of Web Publication12-Apr-2019

Correspondence Address:
Mr. Behzad Houshmand
Department of Periodontics, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science, Tehran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/japtr.JAPTR_327_18

Rights and Permissions

In the present study, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate the biomaterials and their effectiveness for bone augmentation in implant dentistry. The databases of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information), and Scopus were searched for published studies between 2006 and March 30, 2018. We only included clinical studies in this research. Due to a lack of quantitative evidence and the vast heterogeneity of the biomaterials, implant surgery sites, implant types, follow-up periods, and various implant placement techniques (1-stage or 2-stage), we could not manage to do a meta-analysis on the 13 included studies. Several techniques can result in vertical bone augmentation. Complications can be seen in vertical bone augmentation and especially in the autogenous bone grafting; however, some biomaterials showed promising results to be practical substitutes for autogenous bone. Bio-Oss and beta-tricalcium phosphate are our second-level candidates for vertical bone augmentation due to their promising clinical results with the least infection and immunologic response risk. The gold standard, however, remains the autogenous bone graft. Further clinical studies in the future with exact report of bone measures are needed to develop new comparisons and quantitative analyses.

Keywords: Biomaterial, dental implant, osteoconduction, osteogenesis, osteoinduction, vertical bone augmentation

How to cite this article:
Shamsoddin E, Houshmand B, Golabgiran M. Biomaterial selection for bone augmentation in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Adv Pharm Technol Res 2019;10:46-50

How to cite this URL:
Shamsoddin E, Houshmand B, Golabgiran M. Biomaterial selection for bone augmentation in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Adv Pharm Technol Res [serial online] 2019 [cited 2023 Feb 4];10:46-50. Available from: https://www.japtr.org/text.asp?2019/10/2/46/256012

  Introduction Top

Augmenting alveolar bone tissue around the dental implants is of great concern due to its critical role in the long-term treatment success.[1] We focused on the vertical alveolar ridge augmentation technique for this study. Due to an increase in peri-implantitis conditions in the past decade, it is crucial to provide the best bone augmenting biomaterial to accomplish the best treatment results. Tissue engineering is one of the most critical and expanding fields, which mainly cooperates with regenerative medicine and has indicated a remarkable potential in clinical dental practice applications. Biomaterials are one of the three basics in tissue engineering, namely cells, scaffolds/biomaterials, and growth/differentiation factors.[2],[3],[4],[5] Considering their role, many biomaterials have been applied and suggested to use as an alternative to the autogenous bone which is still the gold standard for bone augmentation.[6] Aside from autogenous, xenogenic, and allogenic grafting materials, other natural and synthetic biomaterials have also been playing critical roles in dental clinical cases.[7] Till today, different types of these biomaterials have established their practical roles in dental clinics mainly based on their ease of application and predictable results. To decide which biomaterial to choose, we should consider some factors to mimic the autogenous bone structure, e.g., crystal structure, micro- and macroporosity, and intercrystalline spaces.[8] Chemical, physical, and mechanical properties of the scaffolds should be as similar as possible to that of a natural bone structure.[9],[10] A good bone substituting scaffold should be settled by the resident bone cells or undifferentiated mesenchymal cells.[11],[12],[13] Various biomaterials have been applied into the bone defects using different surgical techniques. Autogenic, allogenic, xenogenic, and synthetic biomaterials are currently on-the-board options for a dental bone grafting process. Lack of immunological responses and a high-volume augmented bone can be considered as the main advantages of autogenic grafts, while they showed a higher infection rate. Other natural biomaterials such as xenogenic grafts can also be encouraged due to their low-content inflammatory reactions and high longevity.[14] Synthetic biomaterials such as bioactive glasses are also another promising choice for bone augmentation considering their notable neosynthetized bone and low amount of residual graft. We retrieved relevant studies about alveolar bone augmentation in implant dentistry and systematically reviewed them based on the PRISMA protocol. This study aimed to systematically review the biomaterials and their effectiveness for bone augmentation in implant dentistry.

  Methods Top

Searching and selection of studies

We have searched four databases of Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library with the keywords, “Biomaterials,” “Bone Augmentation,” and “Dental Implant.” Searching query was modified for each database if needed to achieve most relevant studies. Then, we collected data, based on the relevance to the study topic and the main objective. Any conflicts between the authors were resolved by abstract and full-text reading to determine the criteria which were used in the studies. Twenty-one studies were chosen according to the title skimming and abstract screening, and then the references of these studies were manually searched and checked in Google Scholar. After removing duplicates, we added the relevant ones based on the title and abstract screening. Only clinical trials and case reports were included; the exclusion criteria were as follows: studies which included patients with any systemic disease (e.g., diabetes, cancer, and angina pectoris) and patients older than 65 years of age or younger than 15 years, studies with implant surface modification interventions or maxillary sinus lifting or sinus floor augmentation procedures, non-English language studies, and those reflecting information from before 2006. In the final step, inclusion was according to a consensus between the two authors and 13 studies were chosen for data extraction.

Risk of bias and quality of studies

Both authors independently evaluated the risk of bias for the studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for clinical trials named as grades of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) [Supplementary Table 1]. Furthermore, the complications, blinding, source of funding, sample size, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria were assessed for each study. The risk of bias was determined based on these evaluations as “low,” “moderate,” or “high.” Conflicts between the authors were resolved by a consensus. Finally, the overall quality of each study was defined as “high” or “moderate” using the GRADEpro online service. Also, the “importance” of each study was determined by a consensus between authors, based on all of the evaluations in a range from 1 to 9 as defined in the GRADE protocol. The importance of studies was reported as “not important,” “important,” or “critical” according to their related scores.

Measures of treatment effect

The mean vertical bone augmentation at implant sites and peri-implant marginal bone losses were reported as we did not get enough statistical data to calculate the standard error. The unit of analysis to determine the study quality was the number of implant abutments. Within final studies, we did not find necessary data for the analysis; thus, we sent E-mails to the electronic links or E-mail addresses provided in the studies, but we did not get any response back from them. In the other six studies, weighted mean differences and standard deviations with 95% confidence intervals were used for each study to express the effect measures on continuous outcomes (i.e., vertical bone augmentation and peri-implant marginal bone loss).

Software and applications

The Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014. of Cochrane Library was used to create the flow diagram of searching and selecting the studies. The GRADEpro online service was used to create the study quality table. The tables of quantitative and qualitative analysis were created by excel software (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, 2016), and all of the references were inputted by Endnote (Version X7, Thomson reuters, Canada).

  Results Top

The search results and the number of chosen studies in each step are shown in [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Study selection flow chart

Click here to view

Some qualitative [Supplementary Table 2] and quantitative [Supplementary Table 3] data were extracted.

The risk of bias in the included studies was determined by Cochrane's GRADEpro online tool [Supplementary [Table 1]. Vertical bone augmentation was considered as the first continuous outcome and the second continuous outcome was peri-implant marginal bone loss. Due to a lack of evidence, the measurement of effect size and heterogeneity assessment was not accomplished and no meta-analysis could be done.

  Discussion Top

We aimed to systematically review the biomaterials and their effectiveness for bone augmentation in implant dentistry. Between the included studies, three articles have used autogenous bone fragments. Autogenous bone grafts exhibit three main features as being osteogenic, osteoconductive, and osteoinductive.[7],[15]

Iliac crest bone and bovine anorganic bone were used in two different groups of patients in a randomized controlled trial. The residual graft in the xenograft group (bovine bone) was significantly more than the autogenous bone. The main advantage of the xenograft over the autogenous graft was reported as its less invasiveness.[16] Also, a mixture of autogenous bone and anorganic bovine bone in association with micro-titanium mesh were used for bone augmentation in another case series.[17]

We observed that a mixed xenograft material (Bio-Oss) with autogenous bone and a collagen or titanium mesh membrane as a part of GBR technique can provide an adequate bone augmentation during 6 months after grafting without any specific bone resorption in the follow-up periods.[18]

Bio-Oss was the most common material being used in our data and showed some promising results comparable to autogenous bone grafts in every study.[19] Some of the best characteristics featured about this material can be listed as follows: adequate new bone formation, low reabsorption rate, osteoconductive characteristics, and compensation for the natural bone resorption caused by remodeling.[19] Bio-Oss has also been applicated in sinus floor elevation,[20] extraction socket filling,[21] and treatment of periodontal defects.[22]

Another randomized clinical trial has used autogenous demineralized dentin matrix (AutoBT) from the extracted tooth in comparison with anorganic bovine bone (Bio-Oss) for bone augmentation. Their work showed that AutoBT exhibits osteoconductivity and biocompatibility comparable to Bio-Oss.[23]

Beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) scaffold materials are eminent as bone substitutes according to their biocompatibility, practically extensive availability, ease of sterilization, long shelf life, and low infection risk.[24] β-TCP exhibits a good balance among absorption, degradation, and new bone formation and can also sustain its structural stability by discharging a large quantity of calcium (Ca2+) and sulfate (SO42−) ions, which are crucial inorganic salts for new bone formation.[25],[26]

β-TCP granule-scaffolds with sizes of 1 mm and 1–2.5 mm can also improve the proliferation of BMSCs and promote the expression of osteogenic genes and osteogenesis-related proteins.[12]

Two case series studies had used β-TCP and bioactive glass as the filling biomaterials. Autologous bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells (BMMNCs) were combined with β-TCP, and the role of BMMNCs in reducing early absorption of β-TCP alloplasts in the implant sites was asserted.[24] Bioactive glass provided adequate bone height for implant placement without any complications for implant stability and peri-implant tissue health.[27] The most important aspect here was the “osteostimulation” effect of bioactive glass.[14],[28]

Our data also showed the effectiveness of xenogeneic biomaterials alone to augment the bone defects. Porcine-derived bone and flexible equine bone sheets without membranes have also yielded insufficient bone augmentation for implant placement with no significant resorption of the graft material during a 3-year follow-up period.[29],[30]

Cecchetti et al.[31] showed enough bone preservation after tooth extraction using deproteinized bovine bone mineral to conduct an implant-supported treatment.

The limitations of our systematic review were the heterogeneity in the implant sizes, the different timing of implant placement, the technique of placement (1-stage or 2-stage), and also lack of studies using a single type of scaffold to specifically evaluate its effect. The included studies have used different antibiotic regimens before and after bone grafting for their patients which could possibly affect the bone augmentation results. Various sites of implant placement and different characteristics of bone regions in the maxilla and mandible were the most important limiting factors in our study, and we did not sort our results based on the implant placement locations due to their wide heterogeneity.

  Conclusions Top

Several biomaterials have been used for bone augmentation in implant dentistry, but there are not enough predictable results to show one or more of them as an alternative to the autogenous bone. In general, after the autogenous grafts, we can introduce the Bio-Oss and β-TCP as the most trusted and widely used biomaterials in the xenogenic and synthetic biomaterial categories of grafting materials in dentistry, respectively. These two can give predictable, sustainable, and adequate new bone formation with the least infection rates in implant placement cases, which is the current goal of vertical bone augmentation in dentistry.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

  References Top

Atala A. Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: Concepts for clinical application. Rejuvenation Res 2004;7:15-31.  Back to cited text no. 1
Athanasiou KA, Zhu C, Lanctot DR, Agrawal CM, Wang X. Fundamentals of biomechanics in tissue engineering of bone. Tissue Eng 2000;6:361-81.  Back to cited text no. 2
Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Felice P, Karatzopoulos G, Worthington HV, Coulthard P, et al. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;4:CD003607.  Back to cited text no. 3
Lee EJ, Kasper FK, Mikos AG. Biomaterials for tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng 2014;42:323-37.  Back to cited text no. 4
Fu YC, Nie H, Ho ML, Wang CK, Wang CH. Optimized bone regeneration based on sustained release from three-dimensional fibrous PLGA/HAp composite scaffolds loaded with BMP-2. Biotechnol Bioeng 2008;99:996-1006.  Back to cited text no. 5
Raghoebar GM, Batenburg RH, Vissink A, Reintsema H. Augmentation of localized defects of the anterior maxillary ridge with autogenous bone before insertion of implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:1180-5.  Back to cited text no. 6
Bauer TW, Muschler GF. Bone graft materials. An overview of the basic science. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000;371:10-27.  Back to cited text no. 7
Luz GM, Mano JF. Mineralized structures in nature: Examples and inspirations for the design of new composite materials and biomaterials. Compos Sci Technol 2010;70:1777-88.  Back to cited text no. 8
O'Brien FJ. Biomaterials & scaffolds for tissue engineering. Mater Today 2011;14:88-95.  Back to cited text no. 9
Bra-nemark P-I, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, Rosen HM. Tissue-integrated prostheses. osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Philadelphia, Pensylvania, United States: LWW; 1986. p. 499.  Back to cited text no. 10
Jensen SS, Aaboe M, Pinholt EM, Hjørting-Hansen E, Melsen F, Ruyter IE, et al. Tissue reaction and material characteristics of four bone substitutes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:55-66.  Back to cited text no. 11
Zerbo IR, Bronckers AL, de Lange GL, van Beek GJ, Burger EH. Histology of human alveolar bone regeneration with a porous tricalcium phosphate. A report of two cases. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:379-84.  Back to cited text no. 12
Bignon A, Chouteau J, Chevalier J, Fantozzi G, Carret JP, Chavassieux P, et al. Effect of micro- and macroporosity of bone substitutes on their mechanical properties and cellular response. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2003;14:1089-97.  Back to cited text no. 13
Murphy W, Black J, Hastings GW. Handbook of biomaterial properties. 2 ed. Verlag New York: Springer; 2016.  Back to cited text no. 14
Cordaro L, Amadé DS, Cordaro M. Clinical results of alveolar ridge augmentation with mandibular block bone grafts in partially edentulous patients prior to implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:103-11.  Back to cited text no. 15
Felice P, Marchetti C, Iezzi G, Piattelli A, Worthington H, Pellegrino G, et al. Vertical ridge augmentation of the atrophic posterior mandible with interpositional bloc grafts: Bone from the iliac crest vs. bovine anorganic bone. Clinical and histological results up to one year after loading from a randomized-controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:1386-93.  Back to cited text no. 16
Pieri F, Corinaldesi G, Fini M, Aldini NN, Giardino R, Marchetti C, et al. Alveolar ridge augmentation with titanium mesh and a combination of autogenous bone and anorganic bovine bone: A 2-year prospective study. J Periodontol 2008;79:2093-103.  Back to cited text no. 17
Kim Y, Leem DH. Post traumatic immediate GBR: Alveolar ridge preservation after a comminuted fracture of the anterior maxilla. Dent Traumatol 2015;31:156-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
Schlegel AK, Donath K. BIO-OSS – A resorbable bone substitute? J Long Term Eff Med Implants 1998;8:201-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
Valentini P, Abensur D, Densari D, Graziani JN, Hämmerle C. Histological evaluation of bio-oss in a 2-stage sinus floor elevation and implantation procedure. A human case report. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:59-64.  Back to cited text no. 20
Araújo M, Linder E, Wennström J, Lindhe J. The influence of bio-oss collagen on healing of an extraction socket: An experimental study in the dog. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008;28:123-35.  Back to cited text no. 21
Camelo M, Nevins ML, Schenk RK, Simion M, Rasperini G, Lynch SE, et al. Clinical, radiographic, and histologic evaluation of human periodontal defects treated with bio-oss and bio-gide. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1998;18:321-31.  Back to cited text no. 22
Pang KM, Um IW, Kim YK, Woo JM, Kim SM, Lee JH, et al. Autogenous demineralized dentin matrix from extracted tooth for the augmentation of alveolar bone defect: A prospective randomized clinical trial in comparison with anorganic bovine bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:809-15.  Back to cited text no. 23
Bulgin D, Hodzic E. Autologous bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells combined with β-TCP for maxillary bone augmentation in implantation procedures. J Craniofac Surg 2012;23:1728-32.  Back to cited text no. 24
Pilliar RM, Filiaggi MJ, Wells JD, Grynpas MD, Kandel RA. Porous calcium polyphosphate scaffolds for bone substitute applications –In vitro characterization. Biomaterials 2001;22:963-72.  Back to cited text no. 25
Uzeda MJ, de Brito Resende RF, Sartoretto SC, Alves AT, Granjeiro JM, Calasans-Maia MD, et al. Randomized clinical trial for the biological evaluation of two nanostructured biphasic calcium phosphate biomaterials as a bone substitute. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19:802-11.  Back to cited text no. 26
Nan K, Sun S, Li Y, Chen H, Wu T, Lu F, et al. Ectopic osteogenic ability of calcium phosphate scaffolds cultured with osteoblasts. J Biomed Mater Res A 2010;93:464-8.  Back to cited text no. 27
Gatti AM, Simonetti LA, Monari E, Guidi S, Greenspan D. Bone augmentation with bioactive glass in three cases of dental implant placement. J Biomater Appl 2006;20:325-39.  Back to cited text no. 28
Cucchi A, Ghensi P. Vertical guided bone regeneration using titanium-reinforced d-PTFE membrane and prehydrated corticocancellous bone graft. Open Dent J 2014;8:194-200.  Back to cited text no. 29
Ludovichetti M, Di Stefano DA, Pagnutti S, Vaccari E, Ludovichetti FS, Celletti R, et al. Vertical ridge augmentation using a flexible heterologous cortical bone sheet: Three-year follow-up. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011;31:401-7.  Back to cited text no. 30
Cecchetti F, Germano F, Bartuli FN, Arcuri L, Spuntarelli M. Simplified type 3 implant placement, after alveolar ridge preservation: A case study. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2014;7:80-5.  Back to cited text no. 31


  [Figure 1]

This article has been cited by
1 A bioactive glass functional hydrogel enhances bone augmentation via synergistic angiogenesis, self-swelling and osteogenesis
Fujian Zhao, Zhen Yang, Huacui Xiong, Yang Yan, Xiaofeng Chen, Longquan Shao
Bioactive Materials. 2023; 22: 201
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Informational content of two-dimensional panoramic radiographs and lateral cephalometric radiographs with respect to the bone volume of intraoral donor regions considering CBCT imaging
Phillipp Brockmeyer, Bernhard Wiechens, Tayhan Sevinc, Henning Schliephake, Wolfram Hahn
BMC Oral Health. 2022; 22(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Case series of maxillary anterior bone augmentation with a novel biphasic calcium phosphate: a clinical and radiographic pilot study
Jae-Hong Lee, Eun-Hee Jung, Hyun-Wook An, Jae-Seung Im, Dong-Won Lee, Jeong-Ho Yun
Oral Biology Research. 2022; 46(4): 150
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Repair of a Rat Mandibular Bone Defect by Hypertrophic Cartilage Grafts Engineered From Human Fractionated Adipose Tissue
Chen Cheng, Mansoor Chaaban, Gordian Born, Ivan Martin, Qingfeng Li, Dirk J. Schaefer, Claude Jaquiery, Arnaud Scherberich
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2022; 10
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Intraoperative Creation of Tissue-Engineered Grafts with Minimally Manipulated Cells: New Concept of Bone Tissue Engineering In Situ
Olga A. Krasilnikova, Denis S. Baranovskii, Anna O. Yakimova, Nadezhda Arguchinskaya, Anastas Kisel, Dmitry Sosin, Yana Sulina, Sergey A. Ivanov, Peter V. Shegay, Andrey D. Kaprin, Ilya D. Klabukov
Bioengineering. 2022; 9(11): 704
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Tissue Engineering with Compact Bone-Derived Cell Spheroids Enables Bone Formation around Transplanted Tooth
Nahomi Matsumura, Xianqi Li, Eri Uchikawa-Kitaya, Ni Li, Hongwei Dong, Kai Chen, Michiko Yoshizawa, Hideaki Kagami
Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. 2022;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Bone Regeneration of Critical-Size Calvarial Defects in Rats Using Highly Pressed Nano-Apatite/Collagen Composites
Wataru Hatakeyama, Masayuki Taira, Tomofumi Sawada, Miki Hoshi, Yuki Hachinohe, Hirotaka Sato, Kyoko Takafuji, Hidemichi Kihara, Shinji Takemoto, Hisatomo Kondo
Materials. 2022; 15(9): 3376
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 Adapting the Pore Size of Individual, 3D-Printed CPC Scaffolds in Maxillofacial Surgery
David Muallah,Philipp Sembdner,Stefan Holtzhausen,Heike Meissner,André Hutsky,Daniel Ellmann,Antje Assmann,Matthias C. Schulz,Günter Lauer,Lysann M. Kroschwald
Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(12): 2654
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Bone repair assessment of critical size defects in rats treated with mineralized bovine bone (Bio-Oss®) and photobiomodulation therapy: a histomorphometric and immunohistochemical study
Letícia Cavassini Torquato,Eduardo Antonio Chelin Suárez,Daniella Viscensotto Bernardo,Isis Luzcybel Ribeiro Pinto,Ludmilla Oliveira Mantovani,Thiago Igor Lemes Silva,Maria Aparecida Neves Jardini,Mauro Pedrine Santamaria,Andrea Carvalho De Marco
Lasers in Medical Science. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Combined spectroscopic and DFT studies of local defect structures in beta-tricalcium phosphate doped with Nd(III)
E.A. Vagapova,E. Strugovshchikov,E.O. Orlovskaya,A.S. Vanetsev,L. Dolgov,L. Puust,L.D. Iskhakova,U. Mäeorg,A. Pishtshev,Yu.V. Orlovskii
Journal of Alloys and Compounds. 2021; : 160305
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 The optimal microarchitecture of 3D-printed ß-TCP bone substitutes for vertical bone augmentation differs from that for osteoconduction
Chafik Ghayor,Indranil Bhattacharya,Franz E. Weber
Materials & Design. 2021; : 109650
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 On the road to smart biomaterials for bone research: definitions, concepts, advances, and outlook
Carolina Montoya,Yu Du,Anthony L. Gianforcaro,Santiago Orrego,Maobin Yang,Peter I. Lelkes
Bone Research. 2021; 9(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
13 High failure rate after Beta-tricalcium phosphate grafting for the treatment of femoral head osteonecrosis: a retrospective analysis
Pei Liu,Xiao-hong Mu,Hua-chen Yu,Jian-lei Guan,Zhao-hui Liu,Wei-guo Wang,Qi-dong Zhang,Wan-shou Guo
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2020; 21(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
14 Accelerated degradation of collagen membranes in type 1 diabetic rats is associated with increased expression and production of several inflammatory molecules
Hasan Zoabi,Carlos E. Nemcovsky,Omer Bender,Ofer Moses,Miron Weinreb
Journal of Periodontology. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
15 New Oral Surgery Materials for Bone Reconstruction—A Comparison of Five Bone Substitute Materials for Dentoalveolar Augmentation
Marcin Kozakiewicz,Tomasz Wach
Materials. 2020; 13(13): 2935
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
16 Evaluation of Osteoconduction of a Synthetic Hydroxyapatite/ß-Tricalcium Phosphate Block Fixed in Rabbit Mandibles
Luis Carlos de Almeida Pires,Rodrigo Capalbo da Silva,Pier Paolo Poli,Fernando Ruas Esgalha,Henrique Hadad,Letícia Pitol Palin,Ana Flávia Piquera Santos,Luara Teixiera Colombo,Laís Kawamata de Jesus,Ana Paula Farnezi Bassi,Carlo Maiorana,Roberta Okamoto,Paulo Sérgio Perri de Carvalho,Francisley Ávila Souza
Materials. 2020; 13(21): 4902
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
17 A case series analysing patients with dental anxiety: a patient-centered model based on psychological profiling
Riccardo Tizzoni,Laura Veneroni,Alfonso DæAloia,Marta Tizzoni,Carlo Alfredo Clerici
F1000Research. 2020; 8: 1843
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
18 BMSC affinity peptide-functionalized ß-tricalcium phosphate scaffolds promoting repair of osteonecrosis of the femoral head
Guozong Wang,Yi Li,Tiantong Sun,Congcong Wang,Li Qiao,Yi Wang,Kangkang Dong,Tao Yuan,Jiazheng Chen,Guanqiao Chen,Shui Sun
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2019; 14(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
19 A case series analysing patients with dental anxiety: a patient-centred model based on psychological profiling
Riccardo Tizzoni,Laura Veneroni,Alfonso DæAloia,Marta Tizzoni,Carlo Alfredo Clerici
F1000Research. 2019; 8: 1843
[Pubmed] | [DOI]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
   Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded1251    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 19    

Recommend this journal