PURPOSE: To systematically review the efficacy and safety of resorbable scaffolds for bone augmentation of alveolar bone defects. METHODS: A specific PICO question was formulated: In partially or fully edentulous patients requiring alveolar ridge augmentation (P), how do resorbable scaffolds (I), compared with non-resorbable devices (e.g., titanium meshes) or conventional bone augmentation techniques (C), perform in terms of clinical outcomes including bone gain, implant loss and success, and complication rates (O)? A PubMed/MEDLINE electronic search was conducted to identify clinical studies published until December 2025. No restrictions on publication date were imposed, and only studies published in the English language were considered. Selected studies were all studies on humans using resorbable devices for alveolar ridge augmentation; in vivo and in vitro studies were excluded. Study characteristics, operative techniques, materials, and clinical outcomes including complications, bone augmentation techniques, implant stability, survival and success rates were extracted and analyzed. Resorbable materials evaluated included polylactide (PLA), polycaprolactone (PCL), Polylactic Acid-Polyglycolic Acid (PLGA), and beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP). RESULTS: A total of 3704 articles were found, but only 7 studies met the pre-established inclusion criteria and were considered suitable for analysis. These studies included 39 patients and 45 edentulous ridges. Implant loss was only reported in one study. Complications occurred in three studies, with graft loss in 5 cases. Primary implant stability values averaged 35Ncm. Degradation time is an important determinant, but remains insufficiently studied/evaluated in the included evidence base. CONCLUSIONS: Resorbable scaffolds seem to represent viable alternatives to conventional bone grafting approache. Customized scaffolds may offer additional esthetic advantages. However, larger randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up periods and standardized outcome measures-including CBCT-based volumetric and linear bone gain, clearly defined complication categories, and implant-related outcomes such as stability, survival, and success-are required to enable robust evidence-based clinical recommendations.
Seiler et al. (Mon,) studied this question.