SynthesisTissue engineering and regenerative medicine2022
Clinical Reference Strategy for the Selection of Treatment Materials for Maxillofacial Bone Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The histological and radiological evaluation of autologous peripheral venous blood concentrates in socket preservation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical evaluation of a novel cotton-like β-tricalcium phosphate, poly-L-lactic acid, and polyglycolic acid bone graft material for jawbone defects following cystectomy.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2026Article
- Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound regulates the osteogenic-adipogenic differentiation balance of rat adipose-derived stem cells via the PI3K/AKT-SREBF1 signaling axis.Stem cells translational medicine · 2026Article
- Advanced Biomaterials for Craniofacial Tissue Regeneration: From Fundamental Mechanism to Translational Applications-A Scoping Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Biofabrication for complex tissue regeneration: a scoping review of translational gaps in craniomaxillofacial reconstruction.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
- Magnesium-doped bioactive glass enhances bone regeneration by reversing replicative senescence of human dental pulp stem cells in bone defect therapy.Regenerative biomaterials · 2026Article
- Bone regeneration using adipose derived stem cell spheroids within 3D printed scaffolds in a rabbit radial defect model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A multi-dimensional performance evaluation of large language models in dental implantology: comparison of ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Grok, Gemini and Qwen across diverse clinical scenarios.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Insulin promotes the bone formation capability of human dental pulp stem cells through attenuating the IIS/PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway axis.Stem cell research & therapy · 2024Article
- Regeneration of Rabbit Calvarial Defects with Combination of Stem Cells and Enamel Matrix Derivative: A Microcomputed Tomography and Histological Evaluation Comparing Two- and Three-Dimensional Cell Constructs.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone graft materials have mixed effects of bone repair in the field of oral maxillofacial surgery. The qualitative analyses performed by previous studies imply that autogenous odontogenic materials and autogenous bone have similar effects on bone repair in clinical jaw bone transplantation. This retrospective systematic assessment and network meta-analysis aimed to analyze the best effect of clinical application of autogenous odontogenic materials and autogenous, allogeneic, and xenogeneic bone grafts in bone defect repair. A systematic review was performed by searching the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and other journal databases using selected keywords and Medical Subject Headings search terms. 10 Papers (n = 466) that met the inclusion criteria were selected. The assessment of heterogeneity did not reveal any overall statistical difference or heterogeneity (P = 0.051 > 0.05), whereas the comparison between autogenous and allogeneic bone grafts revealed local heterogeneity (P = 0.071 < 0.1). Risk of bias revealed nine unclear studies and one high-risk study. The overall consistency was good (P = 0.065 > 0.05), and the local inconsistency test did not reveal any inconsistency. The publication bias was good. The confidence regarding the ranking of bone graft materials after GRADE classification was moderate. The effects on bone repair in the descending order were as follows: autogenous odontogenic materials, xenogeneic bone, autogenous bone, and allogeneic bone. This result indicates that the autogenous odontogenic materials displayed stronger effects on bone repair compared to other bone graft materials. Autogenous odontogenic materials have broad development prospects in oral maxillofacial surgery.
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.