Following the application of the eligibility criteria, 25 articles for a total of 22 RCTs were included in the final selection, from which nine different ARP treatment modalities were identified: (a) bovine bone particles (BBP) + socket sealing (SS), (b) construct made of 90% bovine bone granules and 10% porcine collagen (BBG/PC) + SS, (c) cortico-cancellous porcine bone particles (CPBP) + SS, (d) allograft particles (AG) + SS, (e) alloplastic material (AP) with or without SS, (f) autologous blood-derived products (ABDP), (g) cell therapy (CTh), (h) recombinant morphogenic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) and (i) SS alone. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted if at least two studies within the same ARP treatment modality reported on the same outcome of interest.Р”Р„ combined database, grey literature and hand search identified 3,003 records, of which 1,789 were screened after removal of duplicates. spontaneous socket healing) in each individual study after a 3- to 6-month healing period. All these different ARP modalities were compared to the control therapy (i.e. Interventions reported in the selected studies were clustered into ARP treatment modalities. Endpoints of interest included clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Relevant data from these RCTs were collated into evidence tables. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met the eligibility criteria were selected. The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyse the available evidence on the effect of different modalities of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) as compared to tooth extraction alone in function of relevant clinical, radiographic and patient-centred outcomes.Р”Р„ comprehensive search aimed at identifying pertinent literature for the purpose of this review was conducted by two independent examiners.

G-f1 2019 pc