Cargando…

Synthetic Blocks for Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review is aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of synthetic block materials for bone augmentation in preclinical in vivo studies. An electronic search was performed on Pubmed, Scopus, EMBASE. Articles selected underwent risk-of-bias assessment. The outcomes were: new bone formation...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tumedei, Margherita, Savadori, Paolo, Del Fabbro, Massimo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6747264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31466409
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms20174221
_version_ 1783451861861269504
author Tumedei, Margherita
Savadori, Paolo
Del Fabbro, Massimo
author_facet Tumedei, Margherita
Savadori, Paolo
Del Fabbro, Massimo
author_sort Tumedei, Margherita
collection PubMed
description This systematic review is aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of synthetic block materials for bone augmentation in preclinical in vivo studies. An electronic search was performed on Pubmed, Scopus, EMBASE. Articles selected underwent risk-of-bias assessment. The outcomes were: new bone formation and residual graft with histomorphometry, radiographic bone density, soft tissue parameters, complications. Meta-analysis was performed to compare new bone formation in test (synthetic blocks) vs. control group (autogenous blocks or spontaneous healing). The search yielded 214 articles. After screening, 39 studies were included, all performed on animal models: rabbits (n = 18 studies), dogs (n = 4), rats (n = 7), minipigs (n = 4), goats (n = 4), and sheep (n = 2). The meta-analysis on rabbit studies showed significantly higher new bone formation for synthetic blocks with respect to autogenous blocks both at four-week (mean difference (MD): 5.91%, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.04, 10.79%, p = 0.02) and at eight-week healing (MD: 4.44%, 95% CI: 0.71, 8.17%, p = 0.02). Other animal models evidenced a trend for better outcomes with synthetic blocks, though only based on qualitative analysis. Synthetic blocks may represent a viable resource in bone regenerative surgery for achieving new bone formation. Differences in the animal models, the design of included studies, and the bone defects treated should be considered when generalizing the results. Clinical studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of synthetic blocks in bone augmentation procedures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6747264
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67472642019-09-27 Synthetic Blocks for Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Tumedei, Margherita Savadori, Paolo Del Fabbro, Massimo Int J Mol Sci Review This systematic review is aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of synthetic block materials for bone augmentation in preclinical in vivo studies. An electronic search was performed on Pubmed, Scopus, EMBASE. Articles selected underwent risk-of-bias assessment. The outcomes were: new bone formation and residual graft with histomorphometry, radiographic bone density, soft tissue parameters, complications. Meta-analysis was performed to compare new bone formation in test (synthetic blocks) vs. control group (autogenous blocks or spontaneous healing). The search yielded 214 articles. After screening, 39 studies were included, all performed on animal models: rabbits (n = 18 studies), dogs (n = 4), rats (n = 7), minipigs (n = 4), goats (n = 4), and sheep (n = 2). The meta-analysis on rabbit studies showed significantly higher new bone formation for synthetic blocks with respect to autogenous blocks both at four-week (mean difference (MD): 5.91%, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.04, 10.79%, p = 0.02) and at eight-week healing (MD: 4.44%, 95% CI: 0.71, 8.17%, p = 0.02). Other animal models evidenced a trend for better outcomes with synthetic blocks, though only based on qualitative analysis. Synthetic blocks may represent a viable resource in bone regenerative surgery for achieving new bone formation. Differences in the animal models, the design of included studies, and the bone defects treated should be considered when generalizing the results. Clinical studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of synthetic blocks in bone augmentation procedures. MDPI 2019-08-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6747264/ /pubmed/31466409 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms20174221 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Tumedei, Margherita
Savadori, Paolo
Del Fabbro, Massimo
Synthetic Blocks for Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Synthetic Blocks for Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Synthetic Blocks for Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Synthetic Blocks for Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Synthetic Blocks for Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Synthetic Blocks for Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort synthetic blocks for bone regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6747264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31466409
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms20174221
work_keys_str_mv AT tumedeimargherita syntheticblocksforboneregenerationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT savadoripaolo syntheticblocksforboneregenerationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT delfabbromassimo syntheticblocksforboneregenerationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis