Efficacy of rhBMP-2 in Cleft Lip and Palate Defects: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Innovative Molecular and Cellular Therapeutics in Cleft Palate Tissue Engineering

“…169 Specific to bone formation, BMPs are generally considered to be highly potent stimulators of de novo osteogenesis, driving many processes in the bone formation continuum from mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) migration to osteoblast differentiation. [170][171][172][173][174] Inclusion of BMPs in palatal scaffolds is proposed to provide a platform for localized growth factor release to improve the rate and reliability of clinical palatal closure. Delivery of these potent osteogenic growth factors must be highly targeted, however, as BMPs are not bone tissue specific and exhibit off-target and often adverse effects when their delivery solely intends bone regeneration.…”

Regenerative Strategies in Cleft Palate: An Umbrella Review

“…In a review, the risk of bias assessment was not performed [45]. The funding of included studies was not reported in most of the reviews [16,24,42,[45][46][47]. Three reviews did not present a meta-analysis and consequently do not have combined statistical results [16,41,44], ROB effects on the statistical combination [16,41,44,45] and ROB in the discussion [16,41,44,45,47].…”

“…The study funding and the conflict of interests report were not referred to in one review [16]. Thus, with the application of the AMSTAR 2 tool criteria, four reviews were considered to be of low quality [16,41,44,45], four were considered to be of moderate quality [24,42,46,47] and one was considered to be of high quality [43].…”

“…The quantitative analysis of previous meta-analysis synthetic measures was possible using three systematic reviews (Rosa et al, 2019, Uribe et al, 2019 and Xiao et al, 2020) [42,46,47] and showed no heterogeneity between previous synthetic measures (I 2 = 0.00%). Besides this, the random effects model was still applied due to the number of studies in the analysis, and we found that the global standardized mean difference between ICBG and BMP-2 was not statistically significant (p = 0.704) and was estimated to be 0.08 mm 3 ± 0.22 mm 3 (95% CI: −0.35 to 0.51 mm 3 ), as presented in Figure 2.…”

“…The quantitative analysis of previous meta-analysis synthetic measures was possible considering [42,[45][46][47] and showed high heterogeneity between studies (I 2 = 93.8%), perhaps due to Wu et al, 2017 [45], which is the only one presenting a statistically significant effect. Despite this, a global standardized mean difference between ICBG and BMP-2 was estimated and found not to be statistically significant (p = 0.184) and was estimated to be 67.92% ± 51.05% (95% CI: −32.13 to 167.97%), as presented in Figure 3.…”