Table 3.

Data from included studies regarding outcome measures, subject attributes, and results.

Authors	Quantitative Analyzis	Measurements Results
Luca et al., 2019 [45]	CMS/SS-OCT	Bone volume formation: 27.11%
Pomini et al., 2019 [12]	Histomorphometric	Bone volume density: 10.64%
Gerbi et al., 2018 [46]	Histomorphometric	Bone volume density: 21.11%
de Oliveira et al., 2018 [15]	HistomorphometricµCT Immunohistochemistry	Bone volume density: ±25% Mineralized tissue: ±63% ALP (45%)
Bosco et al., 2016 [47]	Histomorphometric	Bone volume density: 9.44%
Cunha et al., 2014 [22]	Histomorphometric	Bone volume density: 48.57%
Havlucu et al., 2014 [37]	Histomorphometric Histopathological	Bone volume density: >60% Inflammation: <30%
Ghahroudi et al., 2014 [33]	Histomorphometric Histopathological	Bone volume density: 47% Inflammation: <30%
Lopes et al., 2010 [18]	Raman spectroscopy	CHA level: 9316%
Kim et al., 2009 [20]	Immunohistochemistry	RANKL (>50%), OPG (>75%), RANK (<50%)
Bhardwaj, 2016 [36]	Radiological for CAL	Linear bone gain: 2.5 mm and reduction of defect angle: 32°

Abbreviations: Complex master slave enhanced swept source optical coherence tomography imaging instrument (CMS/SS-OCT); Microtomographic (µCT); Alkaline phosphatase (ALP); Receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL); Osteoprotegerin (OPG); Receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB (RANK); Calcium hydroxyapatite (CHA); Clinical attachment level (CAL).