Guo-Hao Lin1, Glendale Lim2, Hsun-Liang Chan2, William V Giannobile2,3, Hom-Lay Wang2. 1. Graduate Periodontics, Department of Periodontics & Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. ghlin@umich.edu. 2. Graduate Periodontics, Department of Periodontics & Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To study the effect of the recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) on sinus volumetric and histometric changes after sinus floor augmentation compared to a conventional approach of non-biologic bone grafting materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of 4 databases (January 1990-February 2015), including PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central, and a hand search of peer-reviewed journals for relevant articles were performed. Human clinical trials with data on comparison of sinus volumetric and/or histometric outcomes with and without the use of rhBMP-2 in sinus grafting procedures, with ≥10 augmentation sites in each study group, and with a follow-up period of at least 6 months, were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to analyze weighted mean difference (WMD) and confidence interval (CI) for the recorded variables according to PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The results of the meta-analyses showed that the WMD of vertical bone height gain was -0.14 mm (95% CI = -1.91 to 1.62 mm, P = 0.87), the WMD of bone density was -142.42 mg/cm3 (95% CI = -310.62-25.78 mg/cm3 , P = 0.10), the WMD of the percentage of vital bone was -4.59% (95% CI = -11.73-2.56%, P = 0.21), and the WMD of the percentage of residual bone grafting materials was -9.90% (95% CI = -26.38-6.58%, P = 0.21). The comparison of implant survival rate presented an overall risk ratio of 1.00 (95% CI = 0.94-1.07). The two approaches (conventional bone grafting compared to BMPs) demonstrated comparable effectiveness for both clinical and histomorphometric measures. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review revealed that the use of rhBMP-2 in maxillary sinus floor augmentation achieved similar clinical and histometric outcomes when compared to conventional sinus grafting procedures after a healing period of 6-9 months. However, previous studies showed the morbidity and other patient-reported outcomes were improved in rhBMP-2 approaches as compared to bone autograft procedures (both intraoral and extraoral bone harvesting because no donor site is required). Long-term studies are required to determine the cost-benefit of sinus floor augmentation procedures for patients requiring implant reconstruction.
AIMS: To study the effect of the recombinant humanbone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) on sinus volumetric and histometric changes after sinus floor augmentation compared to a conventional approach of non-biologic bone grafting materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of 4 databases (January 1990-February 2015), including PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central, and a hand search of peer-reviewed journals for relevant articles were performed. Human clinical trials with data on comparison of sinus volumetric and/or histometric outcomes with and without the use of rhBMP-2 in sinus grafting procedures, with ≥10 augmentation sites in each study group, and with a follow-up period of at least 6 months, were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to analyze weighted mean difference (WMD) and confidence interval (CI) for the recorded variables according to PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The results of the meta-analyses showed that the WMD of vertical bone height gain was -0.14 mm (95% CI = -1.91 to 1.62 mm, P = 0.87), the WMD of bone density was -142.42 mg/cm3 (95% CI = -310.62-25.78 mg/cm3 , P = 0.10), the WMD of the percentage of vital bone was -4.59% (95% CI = -11.73-2.56%, P = 0.21), and the WMD of the percentage of residual bone grafting materials was -9.90% (95% CI = -26.38-6.58%, P = 0.21). The comparison of implant survival rate presented an overall risk ratio of 1.00 (95% CI = 0.94-1.07). The two approaches (conventional bone grafting compared to BMPs) demonstrated comparable effectiveness for both clinical and histomorphometric measures. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review revealed that the use of rhBMP-2 in maxillary sinus floor augmentation achieved similar clinical and histometric outcomes when compared to conventional sinus grafting procedures after a healing period of 6-9 months. However, previous studies showed the morbidity and other patient-reported outcomes were improved in rhBMP-2 approaches as compared to bone autograft procedures (both intraoral and extraoral bone harvesting because no donor site is required). Long-term studies are required to determine the cost-benefit of sinus floor augmentation procedures for patients requiring implant reconstruction.
Authors: Ana B Castro; Nastaran Meschi; Andy Temmerman; Nelson Pinto; Paul Lambrechts; Wim Teughels; Marc Quirynen Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Masako Fujioka-Kobayashi; Benoit Schaller; Nikola Saulacic; Benjamin E Pippenger; Yufeng Zhang; Richard J Miron Journal: Clin Exp Dent Res Date: 2017-02-09
Authors: Ronald E Jung; Marionna N Kovacs; Daniel S Thoma; Christoph H F Hämmerle Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2022-01-08 Impact factor: 5.021