ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2023
Application of chemical factors for acceleration of consolidation phase of the distraction osteogenesis: a scoping review.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Application and research progress of mandibular distraction osteogenesis in craniofacial microsomia].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
- Application of Stem Cells in Consolidation Phase of Distraction Osteogenesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2025Review
- Impact of animal source on biocompatibility of bone xenografts: A comparative animal study.Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to analyze the effect of injecting chemical factors compared to conventional distraction osteogenesis (DO) treatment on the bone formation of the distracted area of the maxillofacial region in human and animal studies.
methodElectronic search was done in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane database for studies published until September 2021. The studies' risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Cochrane Collaborations and NIH quality assessment tools. Meta-analyses were performed to assess the difference in the amount of bone formation and maximal load tolerance.
resultsAmong a total of 58 included studies, eight studies analyzed the bone formation rate of the distracted area in human models and others in animal models. Results of the human studies showed acceptable outcomes in the case of using bone morphogenic protein-2 (BMP-2), autologous bone-platelet gel, and calcium sulfate. However, using platelet reach plasma does not increase the rate of bone formation significantly. Quantitative analyses showed that both BMP-2 (SMD = 26.57; 95% CI = 18.86 to 34.28) and neuron growth factor (NGF) (SMD = 16.19; 95% CI = 9.64 to 22.75) increase the amount of bone formation. Besides, NGF increased the amount of load tolerance significantly (SMD = 30.03; 95% CI = 19.91 to 40.16). Additionally, BMP-2 has no significant impact on the post-treatment maxillary length (SMD = 9.19; 95% CI = - 2.35 to 20.73).
conclusionLimited number of human studies with low quality used chemical factors to enhance osteogenesis and showed acceptable results. However, more studies with higher quality are required.
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.