Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39195107›Full record

ReviewDentistry journal2024

Hyaluronic Acid in Bone Regeneration: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Claudia Lorenzi, Andrea Leggeri, Ilaria Cammarota, Paolo Carosi, Vincenzo Mazzetti, Claudio Arcuri

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Claudia LorenziDepartment of Clinical Science and Translational Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Andrea LeggeriDepartment of Chemical Science and Technologies, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0927-4254
Ilaria CammarotaDepartment of Chemical Science and Technologies, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Paolo CarosiDepartment of Clinical Science and Translational Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2442-1091
Vincenzo MazzettiDepartment of Chemical Science and Technologies, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Claudio ArcuriDepartment of Clinical Science and Translational Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess possible histomorphometric differences in new bone formation and in remaining graft particles when hyaluronic acid (HA) was added and mixed with graft materials in bone regeneration. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) of the National Institute of Health Research (registration number CRD42024530030). Electronic research was performed, and involved studies published up to 29 February 2024 using a specific word combination. The primary outcome was to assess possible histomorphometric differences in new bone formation and in remaining graft particles when HA was added and mixed with graft materials in bone regeneration. The search resulted in 138 potential studies. Meta-analyses were performed using the fixed and random effects model to identify significant changes in new bone formation and in the remaining graft particles.

resultsAfter screening procedures, only three randomized controlled trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for qualitative and quantitative analysis. The effect size of HA in the new bone formation was not statistically significant at 95% CI (Z = 1.734,

conclusionsWithin the limitations of the present systematic review and meta-analysis, the addition of HA to bone graft did not result in significant changes in bone regeneration procedures in terms of new bone formation and residues, even if the included studies showed encouraging and promising results.

Indexed as

bone regenerationbone substituteshyaluronic acidmeta-analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39195107
PMCPMC11353189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.