Xenograft materials in maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery: a systematic review with network meta-analyses.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to compare different commercially available xenograft materials used in maxillary sinus floor elevation surgery (MSFES). Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, and grey literature were searched up to 13 July 2020. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. A frequentist network meta-analysis using a random effects model compared different commercially available xenograft materials. The primary outcomes were the percentage of newly-formed bone and residual bone-substitute rate. Both were measured by histomorphometric analysis from bone biopsies obtained during preparation of the implant site. Of the 659 studies initially identified, 11 involving 242 MSFES were included in the quantitative analyses. A total of six bone-substitute materials were analysed (Bio-Oss® (Geistlich Pharma), InduCera® Dual Coat, Lumina-Bone Porous® (Critéria), Osseous® (SIN - Sistema de Implantes Nacional), THE Graft® (Purgo Biologics), and Osteoplant Osteoxenon® (Bioteck)). The P-score estimation showed that Osteoplant Osteoxenon® produced the most newly-formed bone and reabsorbed faster than other xenograft materials after six months. The combination of Bio-Oss® plus bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) significantly increased the percentage of newly-formed bone compared with Bio-Oss® alone. In contrast, the addition of Emdogain® (Straumann) and leucocyte and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) to Bio-Oss® did not significantly improve the amount of regenerated bone. Study-level data indicated that the percentage of newly-formed bone differs among commercially available xenograft materials. Osteoplant Osteoxenon® seems to result in the highest amount of new bone in MSFES.

Histomorphometric evaluation of different grafting materials used for alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis including only randomized clinical trials (RCTs), different grafting materials used in alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction were analysed, focusing on histomorphometric new bone formation (NBF) in core biopsies obtained during implant placement. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and LILACS databases, as well as the grey literature, were searched for published and unpublished trials (from database inception to January 14, 2019). The primary outcome was the percentage of NBF. The secondary outcomes were the percentage of residual biomaterial and the percentage of soft tissue. An arm-based network meta-analysis was performed. The rank of intervention efficacy was obtained to measure the probability of each biomaterial being ranked first across all interventions. A total of 1526 studies were found, of which 38 were included for quantitative analysis. Three trials were rated as having a high risk of bias and 35 trials as having an unclear risk of bias. The network meta-analysis showed that nine grafting materials decreased NBF and 25 did not decrease NBF. The grafting material with the highest amount of NBF was plasma rich in growth factors. Due to the lack of studies with a low risk of bias, further RCTs are needed for definitive conclusions.

Platelet-rich fibrin in oral surgical procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The effect of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in enhancing the healing after oral surgical interventions is still a matter of debate. The purpose of this study was to identify instances where PRF has been shown to be effective in oral surgical procedures. A comprehensive literature search was performed up to 2017 on PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and LILACS databases and grey literature. The full-text of potentially relevant studies were reviewed and only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. A total of 559 studies were found, of which 30 were included for qualitative analysis and 13 for quantitative analysis. Three review authors assessed the risk of bias independently. The available literature suggests that PRF has a positive effect in improving alveolar preservation on extraction sockets and around dental implants. The qualitative analysis showed a significantly better effect of PRF in promoting bone regeneration for alveolar cleft reconstruction. The meta-analysis for third molar surgery showed a decrease in prevalence of alveolar osteitis. PRF increased implant stability 1 week and 1 month after surgery (P=0.0005 and 0.0003). Due to the lack of studies with low risk of bias and a limited number of patients available, further RCTs are needed to confirm these results.