Dentin and bone are both mineralised tissues, so extracted teeth have been studied as a source of graft material. This article explains how dentin grafts are classified and what two recent meta-analyses found. It also makes one distinction clear: the published clinical studies used autogenous tooth grafts, made from the patient’s own extracted tooth. They are not studies of AmGraft®, and their results should not be read as AmGraft results.

How autogenous tooth grafts are made

Three types, by degree of demineralization

Solyom and colleagues describe three main types:¹

• Undemineralized dentin matrix (UDDM)
• Partially demineralized dentin matrix (PDDM)
• Demineralized dentin matrix (DDM)

The degree of demineralization appears to matter. In their pooled data, the proportion of newly formed bone was highest in the PDDM group (51%) and lowest in the DDM group (31%). The authors concluded that complete demineralization tends to decrease the proportion of new bone.¹

What the meta-analyses found

Solyom et al., 2023

This systematic review pooled eight studies (96 patients) for ridge width and six studies (103 patients) for histology, measured 3–6 months after ridge preservation.¹

• Pooled ridge width change: −0.72 mm.
• Residual graft: 11.61% on average.
• Newly formed bone: 40.23% on average.

The authors called autogenous tooth bone graft an effective particulate material for ridge preservation. They also noted that earlier clinical studies had small samples, so conclusions “rely on weak evidence”, and that measurement methods varied between the studies they pooled.¹

Zhang et al., 2025

• Compared with blood-clot healing, autologous dentin preserved 1.67 mm more coronal ridge width.
• Compared with xenograft, the difference in coronal width was 0.75 mm in favour of dentin.
• Both dentin and xenograft maintained buccal and lingual ridge height better than blood-clot healing.

The authors rated confidence in these comparisons as moderate to low. They stressed that several comparisons relied on indirect evidence and that network rankings “are best viewed as comparative summaries rather than definitive statements of superiority”. They recommended that material choice be individualised by handling, availability, preference, cost, timing and experience.²

Why these results do not transfer to AmGraft

Source tissue, processing and form all differ from the autogenous protocols studied above. So the figures in this article describe autogenous dentin only. They are not evidence about AmGraft’s performance, and they should not be quoted as such.

For AmGraft, the IFU is the reference for intended use, indications, contraindications, precautions and handling.³ The manufacturer’s own laboratory and animal data are summarised in the professional area, with each item labelled by evidence type (in vitro or preclinical animal study, data on file).

Practical points

• When you read about dentin grafts, check whether the study used autogenous tooth material, the degree of demineralization, and the healing interval measured.
• Read each product’s IFU for its indications and healing time. The AmGraft IFU, for example, recommends at least 6 months’ healing at the augmented site and states that the product is not intended to bear mechanical loads.³