Literature DB >> 35852720

Application of chemical factors for acceleration of consolidation phase of the distraction osteogenesis: a scoping review.

Sadra Mohaghegh1, Fatemeh Alirezaei2, Nima Ahmadi1, Farnaz Kouhestani3, Saeed Reza Motamedian4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aimed to analyze the effect of injecting chemical factors compared to conventional distraction osteogenesis (DO) treatment on the bone formation of the distracted area of the maxillofacial region in human and animal studies.
METHOD: Electronic search was done in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane database for studies published until September 2021. The studies' risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Cochrane Collaborations and NIH quality assessment tools. Meta-analyses were performed to assess the difference in the amount of bone formation and maximal load tolerance.
RESULTS: Among a total of 58 included studies, eight studies analyzed the bone formation rate of the distracted area in human models and others in animal models. Results of the human studies showed acceptable outcomes in the case of using bone morphogenic protein-2 (BMP-2), autologous bone-platelet gel, and calcium sulfate. However, using platelet reach plasma does not increase the rate of bone formation significantly. Quantitative analyses showed that both BMP-2 (SMD = 26.57; 95% CI = 18.86 to 34.28) and neuron growth factor (NGF) (SMD = 16.19; 95% CI = 9.64 to 22.75) increase the amount of bone formation. Besides, NGF increased the amount of load tolerance significantly (SMD = 30.03; 95% CI = 19.91 to 40.16). Additionally, BMP-2 has no significant impact on the post-treatment maxillary length (SMD = 9.19; 95% CI =  - 2.35 to 20.73).
CONCLUSION: Limited number of human studies with low quality used chemical factors to enhance osteogenesis and showed acceptable results. However, more studies with higher quality are required.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone formation; Chemical factor; Distraction osteogenesis; Growth factor; Maximal load tolerance; Tissue engineering

Year:  2022        PMID: 35852720     DOI: 10.1007/s10006-022-01097-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 1865-1550


  68 in total

1.  The effect of chitosan bead encapsulating calcium sulfate as an injectable bone substitute on consolidation in the mandibular distraction osteogenesis of a dog model.

Authors:  Byung Chae Cho; Ho Yun Chung; Dong Gul Lee; Jung Duk Yang; Jae Woo Park; Kyung Ho Roh; Go Un Kim; Dong Sin Lee; Ick Chan Kwon; Eun Hee Bae; Kwang Ho Jang; Rang Woon Park; In San Kim
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 1.895

2.  Effect of osteogenic periosteal distraction by a modified Hyrax device with and without platelet-rich fibrin on bone formation in a rabbit model: a pilot study.

Authors:  P Pripatnanont; F Balabid; S Pongpanich; S Vongvatcharanon
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2015-01-03       Impact factor: 2.789

3.  Effects of Intermittent Low-Dose Parathyroid Hormone Treatment on Rapid Mandibular Distraction Osteogenesis in Rabbits.

Authors:  Bin Ye; Yunfeng Li; Songsong Zhu; Shengjun Sun; Jing Hu; Shujuan Zou
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 1.895

4.  Krishnan's Comprehensive Classification for Distraction Osteogenesis of Maxilla and Mandible.

Authors:  Pandurangan Harikrishnan
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2019 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.046

5.  Effects of Local Low-Dose Alendronate Injections Into the Distraction Gap on New Bone Formation and Distraction Rate on Distraction Osteogenesis.

Authors:  Yunus Emre Alp; Alper Taskaldiran; Mustafa Ercument Onder; Siyami Karahan; Ismail Doruk Kocyigit; Fethi Atil; Umut Tekin
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 1.046

6.  Clinical application of injectable calcium sulfate on early bony consolidation in distraction osteogenesis for the treatment of craniofacial microsomia.

Authors:  Byung Chae Cho; Jae Woo Park; Bong Soo Baik; In San Kim
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 1.046

Review 7.  Distraction Osteogenesis Versus Orthognathic Surgery: Demystifying Differences in Concepts, Techniques and Outcomes.

Authors:  Manikandhan Ramanathan; Godwin Alex Kiruba; Amelia Christabel; Anantanarayanan Parameswaran; Sanjanaa Kapoor; Hermann F Sailer
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2020-07-21

8.  Craniofacial distraction osteogenesis: a review of 3278 cases.

Authors:  M M Mofid; P N Manson; B C Robertson; A P Tufaro; J J Elias; C A Vander Kolk
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 4.730

9.  Effect of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound on distraction osteogenesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Shenghan Lou; Houchen Lv; Zhirui Li; Peifu Tang; Yansong Wang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2018-08-17       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 10.  Comprehensive Review of Adipose Stem Cells and Their Implication in Distraction Osteogenesis and Bone Regeneration.

Authors:  Mina W Morcos; Hadil Al-Jallad; Reggie Hamdy
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-09-13       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.