OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of bioactive glass (BG) in bone regeneration for implant site development procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The following specific question was formulated with reference to Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes (PICO): "In persons that undergo bone regeneration surgeries for implant site development, what histological outcomes does the use of BG yield, alone or in combination with AB, compared to positive or negative controls?". RESULTS: The 1st phase of screening yielded 400 titles and abstracts. A total of 12 studies reporting on the use of bioactive glass were scrutinized for inclusion in the final analysis and 5 studies were selected for qualitative synthesis of the results. Data were divided into two categories: ridge preservation (n = 2) and sinus augmentation (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this review, it can be concluded that (1) the combination of BG with AB chips in a 1:1 ratio is an efficacious treatment modality for direct sinus augmentation, with histological results comparable to 100 % AB. (2) When used for ridge preservation, BG yields a high percentage of true bone regeneration. (3) Currently, no reliable controlled studies report histological outcomes from the use of BG in ridge augmentation procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians may consider BG bone substitutes as efficacious alternatives for ridge preservation and sinus augmentation surgical procedures. Further controlled clinical studies are warranted to determine if bone-to-implant contact is improved in BG-grafted sites versus controls.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of bioactive glass (BG) in bone regeneration for implant site development procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The following specific question was formulated with reference to Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes (PICO): "In persons that undergo bone regeneration surgeries for implant site development, what histological outcomes does the use of BG yield, alone or in combination with AB, compared to positive or negative controls?". RESULTS: The 1st phase of screening yielded 400 titles and abstracts. A total of 12 studies reporting on the use of bioactive glass were scrutinized for inclusion in the final analysis and 5 studies were selected for qualitative synthesis of the results. Data were divided into two categories: ridge preservation (n = 2) and sinus augmentation (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this review, it can be concluded that (1) the combination of BG with AB chips in a 1:1 ratio is an efficacious treatment modality for direct sinus augmentation, with histological results comparable to 100 % AB. (2) When used for ridge preservation, BG yields a high percentage of true bone regeneration. (3) Currently, no reliable controlled studies report histological outcomes from the use of BG in ridge augmentation procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians may consider BG bone substitutes as efficacious alternatives for ridge preservation and sinus augmentation surgical procedures. Further controlled clinical studies are warranted to determine if bone-to-implant contact is improved in BG-grafted sites versus controls.
Authors: P M Camargo; V Lekovic; M Weinlaender; P R Klokkevold; E B Kenney; B Dimitrijevic; M Nedic; S Jancovic; M Orsini Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2000-11
Authors: Beverley J Shea; Jeremy M Grimshaw; George A Wells; Maarten Boers; Neil Andersson; Candyce Hamel; Ashley C Porter; Peter Tugwell; David Moher; Lex M Bouter Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 4.615