BACKGROUND: The socket preservation technique involves filling the bone defect created after tooth extraction with a bone substitute material. This helps to reduce bone resorption of the post-extraction alveolar ridge. Various types of bone substitute biomaterials are used as augmentation materials, including autogeneic, allogeneic, and xenogeneic materials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in alveolar ridge dimensions and alterations of optical bone density in sockets grafted with two different biomaterials. Additionally, bone biopsies taken from the grafted sites underwent histological evaluation. METHODS: This study enrolled 10 generally healthy patients, who were divided into two equal groups. Patients in the first group were treated with an allogeneic material (BIOBank, Biobank, Paris, France), while patients in the second group were treated with an xenogeneic material (Geistlich Bio-Oss, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland). Tooth extraction was performed, following which the appropriate material was placed into the debrided socket. The material was secured with a collagen membrane (Geistlich Bio-Gide, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) and sutures, which were removed 7 to 10 days after the procedure. Micro-CBCT examinations were performed, for the evaluation of alveolar ridge dimensions and bone optical density, at 7-10 days and six months after the procedure. Bone trepanbiopsy was performed simultaneously to the implant placement, six months after socket preservation. The retrieved biopsy was subjected to histological examination via hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining and Masson's trichrome staining. RESULTS: The results showed that the allogeneic material was more effective in preserving alveolar buccal height and was probably more rapidly transformed into the patient's own bone. Sockets grafted with the xenogeneic material presented higher optical bone density after six months. Both materials presented similar effectiveness in alveolar width preservation. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the outcomes of this study, it can be concluded that both materials are suitable for the socket preservation technique. However, the dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge and the quality of the newly formed bone may vary depending on the type of biomaterial used.