Study Material and methods Outcome measures
Year of publication Study design Number of patients Donor site Observation period Pain Infection Mucosal dehiscence Altered sensation
or vitality of tooth/teeth 		Neurosensory disturbances of IAN
or vestibular area 		Patient-reported outcome measures
Temporary Permanent
Misch et al [24] 1997 CT 31 Chin 4 - 6 months NR 6% 11% 29% Verbal response NR
9.6% NR
19 Mandibular ramus 0% 0% 0% 0%
Cordaro et al. [25] 2002 CT 13 Chin 4 - 38 months No difference 0% 0% Temporary: 7%;
permanent: 0% 		Verbal response NR
5 Mandibular ramus 0% 0% 0%
Clavero et al. [26] 2003 CT 29 Chin 18 months Higher pain 0% NR NR Self-administrated questionnaire Met pretreatment expectations: 91%
Undergo same treatment again: 94%
76% 52%
24 Mandibular ramus Less pain 21% 4%
Silva et al. [27] 2006 CT 50 Chin 120 days NR 0% 0% NR Review of medical records NR
16%
36 Mandibular ramus 8%
Raghoebar et al. [28] 2007 CT 15 Chin 12 months 33% 0% NR Temporary: 13%;
permanent: 0% 		Self-administrated questionnaire Acceptance of the surgical procedure was significantly higher after harvesting of mandibular ramus bone and third molar removala
40% 20%
15 Mandibular ramus 20% Temporary: 0%;
permanent: 0% 		7% 0%
15 Mandibular ramus and third molar 20% 7%
Andersson et al. [29] 2008 CT 16 Chin 3 - 5 years Higher pain NR NR Sensitivity to cold: 12.5% Interview Significant lower discomfortc and higher satisfaction after harvesting of mandibular ramusd
NR 33%
12 Mandibular ramus Less painb Sensitivity to cold: 0% 0%
Cordaro et al. [30] 2011 CT 37 Chin 18 - 42 months Less pain NR NR Negative pulp sensitivity: 13%;
root canal treatment: 0.7% 		PBT TPDT Verbal response Patient´s perception of morbidity did not differ between chin and mandibular ramusj
Mucosa: 16.2%;
skin: 16.2% 		43.2% 40% 13.5%
43 Mandibular ramus Higher paine Negative pulp sensitivity: 3%f;
root canal treatment: 0%g 		Mucosa: 0%;
skin: 11.6% 		41.9% 16%h 2.3%i
Altiparmak et al. [31] 2015 CT 44 Chin 6 months VAS: NR NR Negative pulp sensitivity: 13.8%;
root canal treatment: 1.4% 		PBT TPDT PBT TPDT NR
1.5 (0 - 5.8) Mucosa: 43.2%;
skin: 13.6% 		Mucosa: 34.1%;
skin: 13.6% 		Mucosa: 0%;
skin: 0%
31 Mandibular ramus 1.3 (0 - 4)k Negative pulp sensitivity: 13.3%l;
root canal treatment: 0%m 		Mucosa: 9.7%n;
skin: 12.9% 		Mucosa: 16.1%;
skin: 0%
Ersanli et al. [32] 2016 CT 18 Chin 12 months NR 13% 13% 13% NR NR NR
14 Mandibular ramus 9% 18% 0%
Pereira et al. [33] 2019 CT 29 Chin 12 months 5.6% NR NR 1.9% Self-administered questionnaire Satisfied with treatment: 91%;
recommend the procedure: 91%
62.1% 13.8%o
28 Mandibular ramus 35.7% 3.5%p

aStatistically significant at level P < 0.05 (Student t-test); bstatistically significant at level P = 0.002 (Mann-Whitney test); cstatistically significant at level P = 0.006 (Mann-Whitney test); dstatistically significant at level P = 0.027 (Mann-Whitney test); estatistically significant at level P = 0.003 (Mann-Whitney test); f,gstatistically significant at level P < 0.001 (Mann-Whitney test); hstatistically significant at level P = 0.03 (Chi-squared test); istatistically non-significant at level P > 0.05 (Mann-Whitney Test); jstatistically significant at level P = 0.004 (Chi-squared test); kstatistically non-significant at level P = 0.862 (Mann-Whitney test); lstatistically non-significant at level P = 1 (Fisher´s exact test); mstatistically non-significant at level P = 1 (continuity corrected Chi-squared test); nstatistically significant at P = 0.004 (Mann-Whitney test); ostatistically significant at level P < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney test); pstatistically significant at level P < 0.05 (Mann-Whitney test).
CT = controlled trial; IAN = inferior alveolar nerve; NR = not reported; PBT = pointed-blunt test; RS = retrospective study; SD = standard deviation; TPDT = two-point discrimination test (threshold values of 7 mm and 11 mm); VAS = visual analogue scale.