Comparative Analysis of Allografts and Xenografts as Bone Substitute Materials in Dentistry: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract Background: Bone grafting is essential in dentistry for managing bone loss in procedures such as ridge preservation, sinus augmentation, and periodontal regeneration. Various bone substitute materials, including autografts, allografts, xenografts, and alloplasts, are used. This study focuses on comparing the integration and resorption rates of allografts and xenografts as bone substitute materials. Objective: To evaluate and compare the integration, resorption rates, and effectiveness of allografts and xenografts in dental bone grafting procedures. Methods: A comprehensive electronic search was conducted across Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, Medline, and Web of Science. The Cochrane Risk of Bias visualization tool (Robvis 2.0) and ROBINS-I were used to assess bias in eligible studies. Of 1392 records identified, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Statistical analyses were performed to compare integration rates, resorption patterns, and residual graft material presence between allografts and xenografts. Results: Both allografts and xenografts demonstrated high implant survival rates (>94%), with histological evidence of successful bone formation and osseointegration. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences between the two materials in integration rates ( P = 0.55, I ² = 81%), resorption patterns ( P = 0.33, I ² = 0%), or residual graft material presence ( P = 0.52, I ² = 92%). High heterogeneity in some outcomes may be attributed to variability in study designs or sample sizes. Conclusion: Allografts and xenografts exhibit comparable effectiveness as bone substitute materials in dental applications, with similar integration and resorption outcomes. These findings support their use in clinical practice, though variability in study designs warrants further standardized research.