{"title":"The ability of different forms of autogenous tooth graft to promote bone regeneration: a network meta-analysis.","authors":"Basel Mahardawi, Phu Hnin Thet, Boosana Kaboosaya, Atiphan Pimkhaokham","doi":"10.1007/s10006-025-01330-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Several forms of autogenous tooth graft have been presented. However, it is still unclear which form provides better bone formation and is the best to use clinically. This network meta-analysis aimed to thoroughly evaluate the available literature on the ability of different forms of the autogenous tooth graft to promote bone regeneration, in order to explore if any specific type or method of processing would result in better overall outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases were searched, to find randomized clinical trials, published up to November 29, 2023, which compared two forms of autogenous tooth graft or any form of this material with other bone grafts or with empty sockets and reported the percentage of bone formation in the grafted sites.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1129 articles found, nine were included. The outcomes of this meta-analysis indicated that demineralized dentin, demineralized root with BMP-2 and undemineralized tooth all showed significantly higher bone formation, compared to xenograft; Mean difference (MD) = 23.25, 95% Confidence interval (CI) = 7.42 to 39.08, MD = 17.09, 95% CI = 4.03 to 30.15, and MD = 12.40, 95% CI = 5.64 to 19.16, respectively. Following the GRADE system, the level of evidence was judged to be low/very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Choosing the undemineralized tooth could be a better option than other forms of this material, considering the complexity, time, and cost of the other forms of autogenous tooth graft. Nevertheless, future investigations with more direct comparisons are highly needed, considering the small number of included studies and the low level of evidence obtained from this meta-analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":47251,"journal":{"name":"Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Heidelberg","volume":"29 1","pages":"40"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery-Heidelberg","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-025-01330-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Several forms of autogenous tooth graft have been presented. However, it is still unclear which form provides better bone formation and is the best to use clinically. This network meta-analysis aimed to thoroughly evaluate the available literature on the ability of different forms of the autogenous tooth graft to promote bone regeneration, in order to explore if any specific type or method of processing would result in better overall outcomes.
Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases were searched, to find randomized clinical trials, published up to November 29, 2023, which compared two forms of autogenous tooth graft or any form of this material with other bone grafts or with empty sockets and reported the percentage of bone formation in the grafted sites.
Results: Of 1129 articles found, nine were included. The outcomes of this meta-analysis indicated that demineralized dentin, demineralized root with BMP-2 and undemineralized tooth all showed significantly higher bone formation, compared to xenograft; Mean difference (MD) = 23.25, 95% Confidence interval (CI) = 7.42 to 39.08, MD = 17.09, 95% CI = 4.03 to 30.15, and MD = 12.40, 95% CI = 5.64 to 19.16, respectively. Following the GRADE system, the level of evidence was judged to be low/very low.
Conclusion: Choosing the undemineralized tooth could be a better option than other forms of this material, considering the complexity, time, and cost of the other forms of autogenous tooth graft. Nevertheless, future investigations with more direct comparisons are highly needed, considering the small number of included studies and the low level of evidence obtained from this meta-analysis.
期刊介绍:
Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery founded as Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie is a peer-reviewed online journal. It is designed for clinicians as well as researchers.The quarterly journal offers comprehensive coverage of new techniques, important developments and innovative ideas in oral and maxillofacial surgery and interdisciplinary aspects of cranial, facial and oral diseases and their management. The journal publishes papers of the highest scientific merit and widest possible scope on work in oral and maxillofacial surgery as well as supporting specialties. Practice-oriented articles help improve the methods used in oral and maxillofacial surgery.Every aspect of oral and maxillofacial surgery is fully covered through a range of invited review articles, clinical and research articles, technical notes, abstracts, and case reports. Specific topics are: aesthetic facial surgery, clinical pathology, computer-assisted surgery, congenital and craniofacial deformities, dentoalveolar surgery, head and neck oncology, implant dentistry, oral medicine, orthognathic surgery, reconstructive surgery, skull base surgery, TMJ and trauma.Time-limited reviewing and electronic processing allow to publish articles as fast as possible. Accepted articles are rapidly accessible online.Clinical studies submitted for publication have to include a declaration that they have been approved by an ethical committee according to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki 1964 (last amendment during the 52nd World Medical Association General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000). Experimental animal studies have to be carried out according to the principles of laboratory animal care (NIH publication No 86-23, revised 1985).