Comparison of xenograft and allograft bone graft for oral and maxillofacial surgical preparation prior to dental implantation: A systematic review

Background The implantation of teeth by using dental implants can necessitate the use of bone grafting through xenograft and allograft to increase bone density in the place to induce the integration with the hard tissue. The most commonly used xenografts are usually bovine or porcine and are used in oral and maxillofacial surgery and allografts are those that are taken from the human cadaveric tissue. Objectives The aim of the study was to compare clinical usefulness of xenografts and allografts utilized in the front of dental implant placement in adult individuals experiencing oral and maxillofacial surgical procedure. Method The systematic search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library (2016 2024) on terms: bone graft AND (xenograft OR allograft) AND dental implant was used. The studies of adults using human xenografts versus allografts in English and published in English were included. Studies that use chemotherapy, cancer, heavy smoking, autografts, and use of animal models were avoided. The quality of studies was estimated with the Cochrane tool by two reviewers who screened and evaluated it. Result 12 of the 340 studies that included 395 patients (mean age 40–46; 29.9% male, 70.1% female) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Bovine allografts (41.9%) and bovine xenografts (58.1%) were among the grafts utilized. Alveolar ridge preservation (3), delayed (2), immediate (6), and sinus augmentation (2) were among the procedures. The sinus floor, premolars, anterior maxilla, and posterior mandible were frequently used as graft sites. A lack of demographic diversity and small sample sizes were among the limitations. The buccal wall dehiscence and aesthetics in anterior sites require more research. Conclusion According to the findings of this systematic review, the advantages of synthetic xenografts like Bio-Oss and synthetic allografts like PerioGlas are exactly the same. Registration: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42025641250).