Research Trends in Autogenous Dentin Graft: A Bibliometric and Cluster Analysis (2006-2025)

Abstract

Introduction

Autogenous dentin graft (ADG) represents a promising autologous grafting material for bone reconstruction, owing to its low immunogenicity, inherent osteoinductive properties, and straightforward processing. This study employs bibliometric analysis to examine the research progress and emerging trends in ADG, assessing the scholarly contributions of institutions, journals, and authors from different countries and regions.

Methods

Publications on ADG from 2006 to 2025 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database. Bibliometric and visual analyses were performed using VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and R package 'bibliometric'.

Results

A total of 559 publications on ADG were identified. China led in research output with 61 articles, and Seoul National University was the most prolific institution, contributing 67 publications. Kim Young-Kyun emerged as the leading author, with an H-index of 18 and 23 publications. The Clinical Oral Implants Research was the most influential journal contributing the most publications. Keywords cluster analysis showed 4 main clusters were identified, including ADG for implant placement, ADG for alveolar ridge augmentation, combination with other materials and advantages of ADG. Keywords burst analysis showed emerging interests in 'guided bone regeneration' (2022-2025) and 'growth factors' (2023-2025).

Conclusions

This bibliometric analysis provides an overview of global research trends in ADG. The frontiers in this field may be validation of efficacy of the demineralized ADG-derived membrane and development of standardized protocol for demineralized ADG to further improve patient prognosis.

Introduction

Dentin and bone share a nearly identical organic and inorganic composition, consisting of approximately 70% biological apatite, 18% collagen, 2% non-collagenous proteins, and 10% body fluid by weight.¹ This similarity makes autogenous dentin graft (ADG) a highly promising biomaterial for guided bone regeneration in clinical practice,² especially Traditional autogenous bone grafts are regarded as the gold standard due to their osteogenic, osteoinductive, and osteoconductive properties. Nevertheless, their use is limited by donor site complications, risks of secondary trauma, and restricted graft availability.³ ADG sourced from otherwise discarded teeth, offers an abundant supply and eliminates the need for a secondary surgical site, thereby reducing patient morbidity and yielding lower graft resorption rates compared to conventional bone autografts.⁴ Additionally, in contrast to other grafting materials (eg, allogeneic, xenogeneic, or synthetic substitutes), ADG avoid the potential risks inherent to allografts and xenografts, namely cross-contamination, immunogenic reactions, and donor variability.⁵ Currently, after cleaning, demineralization, and sterilization, ADG can be milled to an optimal particle size and used effectively in clinical bone augmentation.⁶

Over the past decade, ADG has demonstrated promising clinical outcomes. For example, a review of 11 studies confirmed its efficacy in maintaining bone volume, with favourable histologic outcomes and low complication rates.⁷ Similarly, a meta‑analysis of 9 articles supports ADG as an effective option for peri‑implant bone augmentation, showing acceptable results in implant stability, marginal bone loss, and complication/failure rates.⁸ Notably, comparative studies with standardized parameters remain scarce, and the lack of a uniform preparation protocol limits its applicability, particularly in severe bone defects or edentulous patients.² Despite growing interest in the field of ADG, no comprehensive study has systematically summarized the research trends and focal points in this area. Thus, an integrated framework is needed to synthesize existing research, identify connections, and uncover the under-explored areas of ADG.

Bibliometric analysis serves as an invaluable tool for examining research trends, identifying emerging hotspots, and understanding structural developments within a field.⁹ Unlike traditional qualitative reviews, it involves the quantitative analysis of large volumes of publications, offering a broader, data‑driven perspective on research evolution.¹⁰ While such analysis has been conducted for bone grafting in dentistry,¹¹ there is a lack of comprehensive bibliometric evaluation specifically focused on ADG. To address this gap, this study employs bibliometric analysis to identify key contributors, research hotspots, and emerging themes in ADG research, thereby providing guidance for future studies.

Materials and methods

Literature search and data compilation

For the bibliographic search of ADG, the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database was used. This database is a comprehensive and authoritative database that indexes high-quality research across various disciplines, offering a complete citation network and key bibliometric indices.^12,13 The results were limited to journals indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). The search strategy was as follows: TS=(autogenous dentin graft OR autogenous tooth graft OR auto-tooth graft OR autologous dentin graft OR dentin autograft OR tooth-derived graft OR auto-dentin).⁸ The inclusion criteria were: 1) a research paper originally written in English; 2) published between 1 January 2006 and 30 July 2025; 3) articles related to ADG meeting the search formula. Review articles, editorials, letters, conference abstracts, and other non‑original research records were excluded. Additionally, due to single database, no duplicate record was identified. To prevent inconsistencies caused by updates to the database, the literature search was completed on 30 July 2025. Literature information was extracted in 'Full record and cited references' and 'plain text' formats, capturing publication and citation metrics, author information, institutional affiliations, geographic data, subject terms, and journal characteristics.

Statistical analysis

We employed 3 bibliometric tools for visual and quantitative analysis: VOSviewer (v1.6.20), CiteSpace (v6.3.R1), and the R package 'bibliometrix' (v4.5.1).

VOSviewer was used to visually represent the collaborative relationships between countries, institutions, and authors, as well as the colocation and clustering networks of journals.¹⁴ In order to identify emergent trends and hot topics in this study, we used VOSviewer to perform co-occurrence analysis of keywords and CiteSpace to detect keyword outbreaks. In CiteSpace, keyword burst analysis was configured with the following parameters: time slicing from January 2006 to July 2025 in 1‑year intervals, node type set to 'keyword', selection of the top 5 nodes per slice, and network pruning using the Pathfinder algorithm.

A comprehensive scientometrics analysis was conducted using the R package 'bibliometrix'.¹⁵ Various citation metrics are used in bibliometrics, including the H-index, G-index, and M-index, to assess the academic influence of authors and journals. The H-index reflects both productivity and citation impact (an H-index of H indicates H papers each cited at least H times),16, 17, 18 the G‑index gives more weight to highly cited publications, and the M‑index normalizes the H‑index by years of academic activity to account for career length.¹⁹ These indicators are based on data extracted from the WoSCC database. The quality and influence of journals are evaluated through the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) percentile ranking and impact factor (IF) in 2024. The JCR percentile ranking (Q1-Q4) classifies journals according to their relative impact factor in a specific discipline, serving as a benchmark for academic influence.²⁰

Results

An overview of publications

A systematic search of the WoSCC database initially yielded 737 records. Following the exclusion of non-article publications and non-English studies, 559 relevant articles were selected for further analysis, published between 1 January 2006 and 30 July 2025 (Figure 1). Between 2006 and 2024, publication output exhibited a general upward trend, though with intermittent fluctuations. The peak annual output appeared in 2022, with a total of 52 papers published. (Figure 2). The top 10 highly cited articles were listed in Table S1. The most cited article, titled 'Effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on peri-implant health or disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis', was published in Clinical Oral Implants Research and has been cited 323 times.²¹ This was followed by 'Radiographic evaluation of different techniques for ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial', published in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology with 246 citations,²² and 'Efficacy of soft tissue augmentation around dental implants and in partially edentulous areas: a systematic review', also published in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, with 243 citations.²³

Fig. 1.

Flowchart of the literature screening process.

Fig. 2.

Trends in the growth of publications on ADG from 2006 to 2025.

Analysis of the countries

Among the top 20 countries ranked by the number of publications, China led with 61 papers, followed closely by South Korea (59 papers) and the United States (USA, 57 papers). Regarding the total number of citations, the Switzerland topped the list with 2200 citations, with the USA following behind with 1498 citations, and Italy ranking third with 1393 citations. The USA stood out with high multiple country publications (MCP) (23), followed by Italy (17) and South Korea (14) (Table S2 and Figure 3A). At the top of the list of 52 countries participating in global cooperation was the USA, with the largest number of partnerships (total cooperation intensity = 75), followed by Switzerland (total cooperation intensity = 47) and Germany (total cooperation intensity = 40) (Figure 3B).

Fig. 3.

Global Distribution and Collaboration. A. Breakdown of total number of publications identified based on the country of the corresponding author, distinguishing between single country publications (SCP) and multiple country publications (MCP). B. Visualization map depicting the collaboration among different countries. The collaborative relationships between countries, with nodes representing countries, the size of nodes indicating publication count, and the thickness of links showing the strength of co-authorship collaborations. Colours indicate different research clusters.

Analysis of the institutions

The Seoul National University was the leading institution, with 67 articles published. It is followed by the Egyptian Knowledge Bank, which published 56 articles, and Universidade Estadual Paulista, which published 31 articles (Figure 4A). Among the 67 institutions involved in international collaborations with at least 4 articles, Seoul National University led with the highest number of collaborations (total link strength = 35), followed by Korea Tooth Bank (total link strength = 25) and University of Bern (total link strength = 20) (Figure 4B).

Fig. 4.

Institutional Contributions and Collaborations. A. Top 10 institutions contributing to publication in ADG. B. Visualization map depicting the collaboration among different institutions. Nodes represent institutions, with size indicating publication count. Links represent co-authorships, with thickness showing collaboration strength of co-authorship collaborations. Colours indicate different research clusters.

Analysis of the authors

Leading in H-index, Kim Young-Kyun (H-index: 18, rank 1 in total publications with 23) and Um In-Woong (H-index: 14, rank 2 in total publications with 20) were followed by Schwarz Frank (H-index: 9, rank 4 in total publications with 14) (Table S3). For total citations, Kim Young-Kyun ranked highest in Table S3 with 941 citations, while Haemmerle Christoph H. F. (829 citations) closely followed. There's a collaborative network of 103 authors, each with more than 3 works published, there were 4 clusters represented by different colours on the network visualization map. The red cluster centred on Jung Ronald E., Thoma Daniel S., and Haemmerle Christoph H. F., was the largest. Kim Young-Kyun led with the most collaborations (total link strength = 54), followed by Um In-Woong (total link strength = 46) and Jung Ronald E. (total link strength = 33) (Figure 5).

Fig. 5.

Visualization map depicting the collaboration among different authors. Nodes represent authors, with size indicating publication count. Links represent co-authorships, with thickness showing collaboration strength. Colours indicate different research clusters. Link strength in collaboration networks measures the frequency of co-authorship between authors, indicating the level of collaborative research.

Analysis of journals

According to the H-index ranking, the top 20 most influential journals published a total of 359 papers, which accounted for 64.2% of the total number of papers retrieved (Table S4). Clinical oral implantology research ranked at the top with an H-index of 25 and 41 papers published, the next was Journal of Periodontology (H-index: 15) which has published 24 papers. Regarding total citations, Clinical Oral Implants Research dominated with 2066 citations, while Journal of Periodontology (1677 citations) and the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (1330 citations) ranked second and third, respectively.

In the field of ADG research, the co-occurrence network of journals includes 62 journals that have appeared at least twice. Clinical Oral Implants Research (199), the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (140), and Materials (140) stood out with the highest total link strength, indicating frequent co-citation in academic papers and that there is a strong thematic correlation between the research they conduct (Figure 6A). By measuring the extent to which journals share references, a total of 62 journals were identified that share at least 2 references. Clinical Oral Implants Research (8088), International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants (5187), and International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry (4499) exhibited the greatest connection strength, highlighting their significant overlap in cited references and common research foundations (Figure 6B).

Fig. 6.

Network Analyses of Journals. A. Co-occurrence network of journals. The frequency with which journals are cited together within the same articles reflects thematic or topical connections between the research they publish. Colours indicate different research clusters. B. Coupling network of journals. The extent to which journals are linked is based on common references cited in their articles, indicating a shared intellectual foundation or research focus. Colours indicate different research clusters.

Analysis of the keywords

Sixty-six keywords that appeared at least 12 times were identification, enabling the rapid identification of research hotspots in the field. As illustrated in Figure 7A, the keywords were grouped into 4 major clusters: the red cluster focused on ADG for implant placement, including terms such as 'implant placements', 'outcomes', 'follow up' and 'stability'. The green cluster highlighted ADG for alveolar ridge augmentation, featuring keywords like 'augmentation', 'ridge preservation' and 'bone regeneration'. The blue cluster covered combination with other materials, including terms like 'survival', 'combination', 'bio-oss', 'autogenous bone' and 'hydroxyapatite'. Finally, the yellow cluster focused on advantages of ADG, including 'donor site' and 'morbidity'.

Fig. 7.

Keyword co-occurrence network. A. Cluster analysis of keyword co-occurrence network analysis, with colours reflecting the different clusters on research hotspots. Each node represents a keyword, with size indicating its frequency of occurrence. Links between nodes represent co-occurrence in the same documents, with thicker lines showing stronger associations. Link strength measures the frequency of co-authorship between keywords. Colours indicate different research clusters. B. Top 20 keywords with the strongest citation bursts from 2006 to 2025. The blue lines represent the period, and the red lines indicate the burst periods of the keywords.

Analysis of the 20 keywords with the highest number of citations between 2006 and 2025 revealed a shift in research trends. The keyword that saw the strongest surge in popularity was 'immediate loading' (strength = 5.39, 2006-2010), followed by 'guided bone regeneration' (strength = 5.19, 2021-2025). Recent bursts extending through 2025 focus on emerging areas such as 'guided bone regeneration' (2022-2025) and 'growth actors' (2023-2025) (Figure 7B).

Discussion

Metrics analysis of 559 literature sources indicated an increasing trend in researching activities and outlined the development status of the field. Geographic analysis indicates that current research on ADG is primarily led by China, with notable progress observed in areas such as implant surgery and implant-supported prostheses.²⁴ This may be closely linked to the increasing demand for dental care within China’s aging population.²⁵ However, China shows a relatively low proportion of internationally co-authored publications and citation rates in the ADG field, suggesting there remains room for improvement in its global collaboration and academic influence. Meanwhile, South Korea has also demonstrated considerable research activity in ADG, particularly in developing evidence-based clinical protocols.^26,27 The country’s scientific output and international collaborations have garnered notable attention, with institutions such as Seoul National University and Chosun University playing important roles in advancing this field. Among ADG-related studies, the 3 most-cited articles all focus on soft tissue augmentation and ridge preservation following tooth extraction,21, 22, 23 reflecting growing clinical interest in these techniques due to their potential benefits in reducing marginal bone loss, increasing soft tissue thickness, and improving aesthetic outcomes.

Kim Young-Kyun rank first in terms of H-index and number of published papers, making significant contributions to the field. He is a senior researcher at the Korea Institute of Materials Science, where he focuses on advancing the clinical application of demineralized ADG as a carrier for recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2), with the goal of enhancing alveolar bone engineering.^28,29 Journal analysis underscored the central role of specialized surgical and periodontology publications in disseminating ADG research. Clinical Oral Implantology Research and Journal of Periodontology emerged as key venues, highlighting the clinical value of ADG in alveolar ridge augmentation of oral implantation,³⁰ as well as combination with collagen membrane against gingival recessions.³¹ These journals provided the platform for communication among researchers who were committed to applying relevant research results to patients who need oral implants. Collectively, these findings highlight the leading countries, institutions, authors, and journals in the field, thereby providing interested researchers with a clearer overview of the current research landscape of ADG.

Research hotspots

The co-occurrence network of keywords offered a comprehensive insight into the evolving research landscape and identified 4 current hotspots:

Cluster 1 (yellow): advances of ADG

A diverse range of bone grafting materials is available, including autogenous, allogenic, xenogeneic, alloplastic, and engineered personalized grafts. Among these, autogenous bone remains the gold standard due to its ideal osteogenic, osteoinductive, and osteoconductive properties. However, its use necessitates a secondary surgical site, which can lead to donor site morbidity.³² Introduced in 2003, ADG has emerged as a promising alternative, offering similar biological advantages while minimizing donor site trauma.³² In comparison to autogenous grafts, ADG eliminates the need for a second harvesting site, thereby reducing surgical morbidity and resulting in lower graft resorption rates.^33,34 From a physicochemical perspective, ADG closely resembles alveolar bone, sharing comparable concentrations of calcium and phosphate, as well as a similar inorganic‑organic composition.³⁵ Moreover, ADG contains a wide array of growth factors essential for osteogenesis, exhibiting both osteoconductive and osteoinductive potential.³⁶ Consequently, its application in bone augmentation is not only clinically successful but also continues to evolve, solidifying ADG as a highly viable alternative to autogenous bone grafts.

Cluster 2 (red): ADG for implant placement

Building upon its fundamental advantages, ADG has been increasingly applied in implant dentistry. Successful implant therapy requires a combination of favourable local and systemic factors, including osseointegration, precise 3-dimensional positioning, adequate bone volume, appropriate alveolar ridge morphology, and proper surgical technique.³⁷ In this context, ADG has been effectively utilized for immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets with labial bone defects.⁸ The gaps between the implant and the labial bone wall, as well as any existing defects, can be filled with materials such as acellular dermal matrix (ADM) to provide structural support for the buccal contour.³⁸ Dentin particles, characterized by their open tubular microstructure, facilitate capillary infiltration and allow for controlled resorption, thereby providing a stable scaffold that supports gradual and sustained new bone formation.³⁹ Comparative studies suggest that particulate ADG is associated with less vertical and horizontal bone resorption, superior implant stability, and lower rates of complications and failure compared to other bone substitutes.^7,8 Despite these promising findings, there remains a need for further long‑term studies with directly comparable parameters to validate the efficacy of ADG in implant‑related applications.

Cluster 3 (green): ADG for alveolar ridge augmentation

Expanding on its use in implant site development, ADG also plays a significant role in alveolar ridge augmentation. Post‑extraction alveolar ridge resorption is a well‑documented clinical challenge that can compromise subsequent implant placement.^2,40 Ridge augmentation techniques are therefore employed to restore sufficient bone volume. In this regard, chairside‑prepared ADG blocks have been demonstrated to serve as a practical alternative to autogenous bone blocks.³⁰ Clinically, ADG blocks exhibit minimal resorption, comparable to that of conventional autogenous grafts.^41,42 Furthermore, the combination of mineralized ADG with a free gingival graft (FGG) has been shown to enhance new vital bone formation, increase bone volume, and reduce dimensional tissue changes compared to spontaneous healing with FGG alone.⁴³ The adjunctive use of injectable platelet‑rich fibrin (i‑PRF) with ADG has also been linked to reduced postoperative pain.⁴⁴ Meta‑analytical evidence further supports that chairside‑prepared ADG may serve as a viable alternative to conventional bone augmentation techniques in staged ridge augmentation.³⁰ Collectively, these findings highlight the potential of ADG as a promising option for vertical alveolar ridge augmentation.

Cluster 4 (blue): combination with other materials

The therapeutic potential of ADG is further amplified when used in combination with other biomaterials, often yielding superior outcomes compared to single‑material approaches. Initially, ADG was combined with calcium sulphate plaster.⁴⁵ Subsequent developments have incorporated a variety of materials, including calcium phosphate ceramics, hydroxyapatite/β‑tricalcium phosphate (HA/β‑TCP), platelet‑rich fibrin (PRF), Bio‑Oss, and autogenous bone.^2,46,47 More recently, the combination of ADG with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein‑2 (rhBMP‑2) has been shown to facilitate effective bone regeneration without reported complications in clinical studies.²⁸ When autogenous dentin graft is combined with PRF in extraction sockets to enhance osseous regeneration, gradual resorption of dentin particles occurs concurrently with new bone formation. Patients typically report minimal postoperative discomfort, and subsequent implant placements demonstrate consistent stability.⁴⁸ Beyond its inherent osteogenic properties, the efficacy of autogenous non‑demineralized dentin in alveolar bone grafting can be further enhanced by co‑administration with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs).⁴⁹ As a versatile and effective material, ADG is valued for its ability to synergize with other biomaterials, thereby improving patient comfort and ensuring more predictable clinical outcomes.

Research frontiers

Over the past decade, research on ADG has evolved through several distinct phases, each reflecting shifting priorities in clinical needs and scientific understanding. The early focus on 'ridge augmentation' (2011-2012), 'anterior maxilla' (2015-2018), and 'autogenous bone graft' (2015-2016) dominated the literature, marking an exploratory phase focused on establishing ADG as a viable alternative to autogenous bone. This was supported by foundational studies demonstrating that demineralized dentin shares significant chemical and structural similarities with natural bone,⁵⁰ and by long-term clinical evidence showing stable bone contours and implant success over more than a decade.⁵¹ This phase established the material’s core promise: comparable efficacy without the morbidity of a second surgical site.

Subsequent research shifted toward comparative validation, as indicated by the high-frequency keywords 'bovine bone' (2017-2018) and 'bone substitutes' (2017-2018). This trend underscores a critical step in the field’s maturation: benchmarking ADG against established standards like the widely used xenograft Bio-Oss®. Studies confirmed that ADG delivers clinical outcomes – including in procedures like immediate implant placement, sinus floor elevation, and defect repair – that are comparable to those of Bio-Oss®, with similar cumulative survival rates.^8,52 This phase provided the necessary evidence for ADG’s integration into routine clinical practice.

The most recent trend (2020-2025), characterized by a surge in citations and a focus on 'Guided bone regeneration' (GBR, 2022-2025) and 'Growth factors' (2023-2025), reveals a strategic pivot toward refinement and mechanism-driven optimization. Researchers are now moving beyond proving basic efficacy to enhancing ADG’s performance within advanced regenerative protocols. For instance, its inherent roughness and growth factor content (eg, BMPs, TGF-β)⁵³ are being leveraged to address limitations of conventional GBR membranes, such as poor osteoblast adhesion.⁵⁴ Early studies even suggest its potential as a bioactive barrier membrane itself.⁵⁵ This progression, however, has revealed a central challenge: the lack of standardized processing protocols.^2,56 The demineralization process—critical for releasing growth factors and determining final material properties – remains largely empirical, leading to variability in clinical outcomes. Consequently, the current and future research imperative is clear: to develop standardized, reproducible protocols that optimize the balance between demineralization depth (for growth factor release) and structural integrity (for osteoconduction). Success in this endeavour will be key to transitioning ADG from a promising alternative to a reliably superior and consistently effective biomaterial in regenerative dentistry.

Future clinical implications

ADG presents several potential advantages. The material can be sourced relatively conveniently by repurposing dental waste from routine clinical procedures, and it may offer cost benefits compared to many conventional grafting materials. Its harvesting process is also considered less invasive than that of autologous bone grafts. Moreover, its acellular nature could contribute to enhanced biosafety by potentially lowering risks associated with disease transmission and immunogenic reactions. When partially demineralized, ADG has shown promising osteoinductive and osteoconductive properties, supporting its potential applicability in bone regeneration.² While availability can be limited due to the need for concurrent tooth extraction and a compatible defect site, ADG has so far been used predominantly in dental applications. With ongoing improvements in dentin graft material quality, its use might expand into orthopaedic settings, where its performance and adaptability would be of interest. Adjusting particle sizes and degrees of demineralization could help better match specific clinical requirements.⁵⁷ Additionally, combining ADG with autogenous bone, MSCs, PRF, or growth factors may help broaden its indications and possibly enhance its efficacy.^44,58 Commercially available xenogeneic dentin-derived materials, which are supplied in ready-to-use form and do not require additional preparation,⁵⁹ could also help address some of the current limitations. The development of such materials appears to be a promising direction for future research and could contribute to improved patient outcomes.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study that should be noted. Firstly, although the WoSCC database used for the bibliometric analysis is relatively comprehensive, it may have omitted related studies included in others databases. This may lead to selection bias and limit the universality of the study results. Secondly, the analysis was limited to English-language literature, which may have overlooked important contributions in other languages and non-article sources, thereby compromising the comprehensiveness of the analysis. Third, the reliance on bibliometric indicators such as publication count and citation metrics does not fully capture the quality or impact of the research evidences, which may overstate the current hotspots and future frontiers concluded by analysis of keywords. Finally, the search strategy did not distinguish between mineralized dentin matrix (MDM) and demineralized dentin matrix (DDM),² which may affect the interpretation of trends and the validity of the conclusions. Future studies could consider integrating multiple databases, analysing a wider range of document types, and differentiating ADG by its preparation methods – such as GMP-grade, institution-manufactured, and chairside-prepared ADG – to better capture the research landscape in this field.

Conclusion

Based on a bibliometric analysis of 559 publications, this study identifies a steadily growing research interest in ADG, reflected by an annual growth rate of 9.06%. The analysis traces the evolution of research themes, collaboration networks, and key contributions from leading researchers and institutions. Current research hotspots include the application of ADG in implant placement, alveolar ridge augmentation, its combination with various biomaterials, and the inherent advantages of ADG such as high biosafety, as well as osteoinductive and osteoconductive potential. Looking forward, it may be beneficial for future studies to focus on validating the efficacy of demineralized ADG-derived membranes, as well as developing standardized processing protocols to enhance reproducibility and clinical outcomes. These efforts could contribute to refining ADG-based treatments and potentially improving long-term patient prognosis. The findings from this body of literature hold substantial clinical relevance, offering insightful guidance for designing novel bone regeneration strategies and advancing personalized therapeutic approaches in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Authors' contributions

(1) Conception and design: Yang Guo; (2) Administrative support: Yang Guo, Chenghao Tong; (3) Data analysis and interpretation: Yang Guo, Chenghao Tong; (4) Manuscript writing: Yang Guo, Chenghao Tong, Tian Wang, Lijuan Zhou, Meichao Wang; (5) Final approval of manuscript: Yang Guo, Chenghao Tong, Tian Wang, Lijuan Zhou, Meichao Wang.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Conflict of interest

None disclosed.