Bioactive treatments in bone grafts for implant‐based rehabilitation: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Rosa, Wellington Luiz de Oliveira da; Silva, Tiago Machado da; Silva, Adriana Fernandes da; Piva, Evandro

doi:10.1111/cid.12552

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(181 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In both cases, PMA and NMA (low quality of evidence) found no statistically significant difference. Such results are in agreement with those of previous studies 63,64,82,89,90 . Nevertheless, the application of MSCs in combination with any osteoconductive biomaterials (xenografts or autograft with xenografts) resulted in a greater amount of NBF when the healing time was more than 6 months, suggesting that remodelling may require a longer time when using these materials, in spite of the association with MSCs.…”

Section: Autogenous Bone Vs Bmp-2/different Bone Grafts Plus Mscssupporting

confidence: 94%

Do osteoconductive bone substitutes result in similar bone regeneration for maxillary sinus augmentation when compared to osteogenic and osteoinductive bone grafts? A systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis

Al‐Moraissi

Alkhutari

Abotaleb

et al. 2020

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Autogenous Bone Vs Bmp-2/different Bone Grafts Plus Mscssupporting

confidence: 94%

Do osteoconductive bone substitutes result in similar bone regeneration for maxillary sinus augmentation when compared to osteogenic and osteoinductive bone grafts? A systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis

Al‐Moraissi

Alkhutari

Abotaleb

et al. 2020

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the meta-analysis on the treatment of furcation defects, the estimate of the first trial was 2.40, and the PI of the respective meta-analysis ranged from 0.56 to 2.11. Furthermore, 1 meta-analysis ( da Rosa et al 2018 ) assessed the efficacy of bioactive proteins for bone regeneration in implant-based rehabilitation. In this case, the first trial reported an estimate of –0.74 with the PI of the corresponding meta-analysis ranging from –0.61 to 0.07.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early Optimistic Effect in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry Trials

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differences in effect estimates between early primary trials included in a meta-analysis and the pooled estimate of meta-analysis might indicate potential novelty bias. The objective of this study was to assess the presence of novelty bias in a sample of studies published in periodontology and implant dentistry. On August 7, 2020, we searched the PubMed database for meta-analyses of clinical studies published between August 2015 and August 2020. Meta-analyses with at least 4 primary studies were selected for assessment. We fitted logistic regression models using trial characteristics as predictors to assess the association between these characteristics and 1) the odds of the first trial’s estimate to be included in the meta-analysis confidence interval (CI) and 2) the odds of overlap between the first trial’s CI and the meta-analysis prediction interval (PI). Ninety-two meta-analyses provided data for assessment. In absolute values, 70% of the meta-analyses have a pooled estimate smaller than the corresponding estimate of the first trial, although there was overlap of the CI of estimates from the first trial and the meta-analysis in 87% of the cases. This is probably due to the small number of trials in most meta-analyses and the subsequently large uncertainty associated with the pooled effect estimate. As the number of trials in the meta-analysis increased, the odds of the treatment effect estimate of the first trial to be included in the meta-analysis CI decreased by 15% for every additional trial (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.96). Meta-analytic effect estimates appear to be more conservative than those from the first trial in the meta-analysis. Our findings show evidence of novelty bias in periodontology and implant dentistry; therefore, clinicians should be aware of the risk of making decisions based on the information reported in new trials because of the risk of exaggerated estimates in these trials.

show abstract

“…Dental implant placement is usually performed 6 months after MSFA to allow maturation of the grafted material, and transmucosal abutment connections and applications of functional loading are performed after an additional healing period of 4-8 months after implant placement [15,[27][28][29][30]. To improve bone regeneration and shorten the long treatment timeline from MSFA to completion of prosthetic rehabilitation, the effects of various bioactive proteins have been investigated [22,[31][32][33][34]. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), an autologous source of platelet derived growth factor, TGF-β, and VEGF, allowed early implant placement and accelerated bone healing with stable maintenance of graft volume [35,36].…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of dental implant after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with rhBMP-2/hydroxyapatite compared to deproteinized bovine bone

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of early implant placement and functional loading in maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2/hydroxyapatite (rhBMP-2/HA) and to compare these outcomes with those of the conventional protocol in MSFA using deproteinized bovine bone (DBB). Materials and methods The rhBMP-2/HA and DBB groups consisted of 14 and 13 patients who underwent MSFA with BMP and DBB, respectively. After placement of 22 implants and 21 implants in the rhBMP-2/HA and DBB groups, respectively, abutment connections were performed 3 months after implant placement for the rhBMP-2/HA group and 6 months after implant placement for the DBB group. Changes in grafted sinus height (GSH), marginal bone loss (MBL), and implant stability were evaluated up to one year after functional loading. Results Survival rates for the rhBMP-2/HA and DBB groups after one year of functional loading were 90.9% and 90.5%, respectively. Both groups exhibited no significant time-course changes in GSH until one year of functional loading (rhBMP-2/HA, p = 0.124; DBB, p = 0.075). Although significant MBL occurred after one year of functional loading for both groups (rhBMP-2/HA, p < 0.001; DBB, p < 0.001), there were no significant differences in time-course changes in MBL between the two groups (p = 0.450). The mean implant stability quotient values in the rhBMP-2/HA and DBB groups were 75.3 and 75.4 after one year of functional loading, respectively, and there were no significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.557). Conclusions MSFA using rhBMP-2/HA allowed implant rehabilitation with early implant placement and functional loading and led to a comparable survival rate and implant stability after 1 year of functional loading with acceptable MBL and stable maintenance of GSH compared to the MSFA using DBB with 6 months of healing after implant placement.

show abstract

Bioactive treatments in bone grafts for implant‐based rehabilitation: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract: Bioactive proteins may improve bone formation in alveolar ridge augmentation, and reduce residual bone grafts in sinus floor augmentation. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effect of using bioactive treatments for implant-based rehabilitation.

Cited by 7 publications

References 57 publications

Do osteoconductive bone substitutes result in similar bone regeneration for maxillary sinus augmentation when compared to osteogenic and osteoinductive bone grafts? A systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis

Do osteoconductive bone substitutes result in similar bone regeneration for maxillary sinus augmentation when compared to osteogenic and osteoinductive bone grafts? A systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis

Early Optimistic Effect in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry Trials

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of dental implant after maxillary sinus floor augmentation with rhBMP-2/hydroxyapatite compared to deproteinized bovine bone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About