ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Regenerative Strategies in Cleft Palate: An Umbrella Review.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced osteogenic potential of chitosan scaffolds loaded withRegenerative therapy · 2026Article
- Options for Regenerative Treatment with Bone Grafts in Children with Anterior Lip/Palate Cleft-A Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Stem Cell-Based Regenerative Approaches for the Treatment of Cleft Lip and Palate: A Comprehensive Review.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2024Review
- β-Tricalcium Phosphate as Alveolar Bone Grafting in Cleft Lip/Palate: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2023Review
- Three-Dimensional Impression of Biomaterials for Alveolar Graft: Scoping Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- The strategy of composite grafting with BMP2-Loaded calcium phosphate cements and autogenous bone for alveolar cleft reconstruction.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- Bone Regeneration of a 3D-Printed Alloplastic and Particulate Xenogenic Graft with rhBMP-2.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Alveolar bone defects or decreased alveolar bone height and width may have different causes, such as cleft palate. Regenerative procedures in oro-dental defects are challenging due to anatomical factors and the distinct cell populations involved. The iliac crest bone graft remains the gold-standard for cleft palate closure. However, tissue regeneration approaches have been employed and their outcome reviewed, but no conclusions have been made about which one is the gold-standard. (2) Methods: this umbrella review aims to critically appraise the effectiveness of the current approaches in bone defects regeneration in non-syndromic patients with cleft palate. A search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science and EMBASE databases. (3) Results: Systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials with or without meta-analysis were included. Nine articles were included in the qualitative analysis and five in the quantitative one. The included studies quality was evaluated with AMSTAR2. (4) Conclusions: The use of new regenerative strategies, such as bone morphogenic protein 2, appears to provide similar results regarding bone volume, filling, and height to the standard technique with the iliac crest bone graft.
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.