Objective: To synthesize advances (2015–2025) in biomaterials for alveolar bone regeneration in dentistry covering alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), guided bone regeneration (GBR), socket/defect grafting, and alveolar ridge reconstruction (ARR) and to appraise clinical efficacy, safety, and translational gaps.
Methods: Narrative review of randomized trials, systematic reviews, and key mechanistic/clinical papers (2015–2025) identified via PubMed/PMC/Scopus and publisher sites using combinations of “alveolar ridge preservation,” “guided bone regeneration,” “xenograft,” “alloplast,” “biphasic calcium phosphate,” “bioactive glass,” “autogenous tooth/dentin graft,” and “membrane.” Priority was given to human trials and methodologically robust reviews. Up to 10 references were cited in order of appearance.
Results: ARP reliably limits post-extraction dimensional loss; xenografts and alloplasts (notably injectable biphasic calcium phosphate) yield comparable histologic and clinical outcomes in several RCTs, with material-dependent remodeling kinetics [1–3]. Autogenous tooth/dentin grafts emerge as a viable alternative with favorable histomorphometry and esthetics in ARP, though processing variability remains a concern [4–5]. In GBR, both resorbable collagen and non-resorbable membranes (e.g., d-PTFE/titanium-reinforced) support defect regeneration; overall differences in effectiveness are small, while exposure/handling risks differ [6–7]. Bioactive glass shows promising adjunctive effects but clinical benefits over standard care are modest and heterogeneous [8–9]. Long-term implant outcomes after ARP/ARR appear favorable when protocols are standardized [10].
Conclusions: Multiple biomaterial classes can achieve predictable alveolar regeneration when combined with sound surgical protocols. Future priorities include head-to-head trials with standardized endpoints, guidance on biomaterial selection by defect phenotype, and reporting core outcomes (patient-reported measures, esthetics, long-term stability).