Clinical Evidence
Published studies relevant to our dental portfolio
We believe clinicians should have easy access to evidence. Below are selected peer-reviewed publications where CenoBone®, CenoMembrane® and CenoDerm® are described in dental/periodontal applications.
*Note: Individual outcomes vary. These summaries do not replace IFUs, training, or clinician judgement.
1) Lateral ridge augmentation: CenoBone®/CenoMembrane® vs Bio-Oss®/Bio-Gide®
Study type: Randomised controlled clinical trial (preliminary)
Summary: Compared two graft + membrane complexes for lateral ridge augmentation. Reported comparable radiographic, histologic, and histomorphometric outcomes at 6 months, with some differences in specific parameters.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27857771/
Full text (PMC): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5091004/
2) Ridge preservation (extraction sockets): CenoBone® with and without PRGF
Study type: Clinical trial
Summary: Evaluated clinical, histologic, and histomorphometric outcomes when CenoBone® was used alone versus combined with PRGF in extraction socket ridge preservation.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36960023/
Full text (PMC): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10028575/
3) Soft tissue (ADM) case report: CenoDerm® for multiple gingival recessions
Study type: Case report with one-year follow-up
Summary: Described use of CenoDerm® with a coronally positioned flap for multiple gingival recession defects, reporting outcomes at one year.
PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25346839/
Full text (PMC): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4206762/
Wider context: ADM in periodontal and implant plastic surgery (category-level)
Systematic reviews and clinical trials discuss ADM approaches (as a category) across periodontal and implant plastic surgery.
Systematic review (ADM category): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2019.12.005