ArticleWorld journal of stem cells2015
Mesenchymal stem cells in maxillary sinus augmentation: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of stem cells, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative analysis of change in bone volume 5 years after sinus floor elevation using plate-shaped bone substitutes: a prospective observational study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024Observational
- Viable cryopreserved human bone graft exhibit superior osteogenic properties in mandibular lateral augmentation.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Preclinical and Clinical Applications of Biomaterials in the Enhancement of Wound Healing in Oral Surgery: An Overview of the Available Reviews.Pharmaceutics · 2020Review
- Cytoprotective Preconditioning of Osteoblast-Like Cells withInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- Human Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cell-Seeded Bone Biomaterial Directs Fast and Superior Mandibular Bone Augmentation in Rats.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Improved guided bone regeneration by combined application of unmodified, fresh autologous adipose derived regenerative cells and plasma rich in growth factors: A first-in-human case report and literature review.World journal of stem cells · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Poly(Lactic-co-glycolic) Acid Alone or in Combination with Hydroxyapatite on Human-Periosteal Cells Bone Differentiation and in Sinus Lift Treatment.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Article
- Mesenchymal stem cells with osteogenic potential in human maxillary sinus membrane: an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2017Article
- Autologous Periosteum-Derived Micrografts and PLGA/HA Enhance the Bone Formation in Sinus Lift Augmentation.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2017Article
- Restoration of bone defects using modified heterogeneous deproteinized bone seeded with bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells.American journal of translational research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in maxillary sinus augmentation (MSA), with various scaffold materials.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and SCOPUS were searched using keywords such as sinus graft, MSA, maxillary sinus lift, sinus floor elevation, MSC and cell-based, in different combinations. The searches included full text articles written in English, published over a 10-year period (2004-2014). Inclusion criteria were clinical/radiographic and histologic/ histomorphometric studies in humans and animals, on the use of MSCs in MSA. Meta-analysis was performed only for experimental studies (randomized controlled trials and controlled trials) involving MSA, with an outcome measurement of histologic evaluation with histomorphometric analysis reported. Mean and standard deviation values of newly formed bone from each study were used, and weighted mean values were assessed to account for the difference in the number of subjects among the different studies. To compare the results between the test and the control groups, the differences of regenerated bone in mean and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
resultsThirty-nine studies (18 animal studies and 21 human studies) published over a 10-year period (between 2004 and 2014) were considered to be eligible for inclusion in the present literature review. These studies demonstrated considerable variation with respect to study type, study design, follow-up, and results. Meta-analysis was performed on 9 studies (7 animal studies and 2 human studies). The weighted mean difference estimate from a random-effect model was 9.5% (95%CI: 3.6%-15.4%), suggesting a positive effect of stem cells on bone regeneration. Heterogeneity was measured by the I (2) index. The formal test confirmed the presence of substantial heterogeneity (I (2) = 83%, P < 0.0001). In attempt to explain the substantial heterogeneity observed, we considered a meta-regression model with publication year, support type (animal vs humans) and follow-up length (8 or 12 wk) as covariates. After adding publication year, support type and follow-up length to the meta-regression model, heterogeneity was no longer significant (I (2) = 33%, P = 0.25).
conclusionSeveral studies have demonstrated the potential for cell-based approaches in MSA; further clinical trials are needed to confirm these results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.