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

Abstract Background: Dental implant procedures also use xenografts and allografts as common types of bone grafts. Xenografts originate from animal tissues, most commonly bovine or porcine tissues, while allografts originate from human cadavers, both of which are used to supplement bone mass and provide the basis for osseointegration in regions with inherently poor bone density. Objectives: Comparative evidence of xenografts and allografts in oral and maxillofacial surgery prior to dental implant site preparation. Method: The PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases were searched using the terms: ‘bone graft’ AND (xenograft) ((‘OR’ ‘allograft’ ‘xenograft’)) AND ‘dental implant’ language[English] from January[P1] 2016 to 2024. For each study, the data were searched for by one of the reviewers who validated the results with the second reviewer. Included studies that compare allograft and xenograft materials in Adult patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery for implants were studied using recent literature from the last eight years, and excluded studies with patients undergoing chemotherapy, those with cancer, and heavy smokers (more than ten cigarettes daily). Research utilized animal models and tissue cultures, with systematic reviews comparing graft material effectiveness, excluding autografts. Quality of evidence and methodology scores were applied using Cochrane collaboration tool. Result: Of 340 studies from the literature search, only 12 were included, six using immediate implant and two delayed implant, three ARP, and two sinuses. A total of 395 patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 40–46 years. The average sex ratio was 29.9%[P2] males and 70.1 females The total number of Bone grafting indicated that 58·1% surgeons using bovine bone blocks and 41·9% of using allograft bone blocks.With regard to the surgical modality, 58.3% of the studies reported the specific anatomic regions where SF was done; posterior mandibular region, maxillary anterior region and premolar regions, sinus floor augmentation, anterior maxillary region, single rooted tooth region, lateral window technique in maxilla, posterior molars and premolars regions. The research points out limitations such as a small group size and the necessity for larger, more diverse samples in future studies. It also emphasizes the importance of assessing aesthetics in anterior sites and evaluating buccal wall dehiscence defects for biomaterial effectiveness. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review concluded that synthetic allografts like (PerioGlas) and synthetic xenografts like (Bio-Oss) hold perfectly parallel benefits. Funding: None. Registration: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42025641250). Keywords: bone graft, xenograft, allograft, sinus augmentation, dental implant.