Graft granules’ dimensions reported by different studies. The table indicates what is the size of the granules commonly considered optimal in regeneration and then has a reference
| Authors | Granules’ dimensions (mm) |
|---|---|
| Kim et al., 2014 [72] | 0.5–1.0 |
| Kim et al., 2013 [74] | 0.4–0.8 |
| Murata et al., 2005 [76] | 0.4–0.8 |
| Nampo et al., 2010 [77] | 0.5 |
| Kim et al., 2010 [78] | 0.2–1.2 |
| Jun et al., 2014 [73] | 0.5–1.0 |
| Binderman et al., 2014 [85] | 0.3–1.2 |
| Dozza et al., 2017 [79] | 0.5–1.0 |
| Testori et al., 2013 [81] | 1.0–2.0 |
| Klüppel et al., 2013 [86] | 0.2–0.4 |
EM, GD, ADI, and FI: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. AP: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft. FV and AMI: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—review & editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local Ethical Committee for Biomedical Research of Chieti and Pescara (Protocol Number 1869/21.03.2019).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Not applicable.
Data from the present manuscript will be made available upon reasonable request, and the corresponding author will provide the data upon request.
Not applicable.
© The Author(s) 2024.