ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Efficacy of Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 in Alveolar Cleft Treatment for Children: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 biomaterials in promoting bone regeneration: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlveolar bone reconstruction with recombinant protein has several advantages, including less surgical timing, and reduced infection. This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) as a treatment modality for children with cleft lip and palate compared to the conventional iliac crest bone grafting approach.
methodsFor current systematic review and meta-analysis, five electronic databases, namely, MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect, were searched. The primary outcome measured in this review was bone volume and height after alveolar bone reconstruction surgery. The Risk of Bias Tool 2 assessed the risk of bias for randomized control trials and the Risk of Bias tool for non-randomized trials of interventions for non-randomized studies. By evaluating pooled meta-analysis, the mean difference was calculated. GRADE uncertainty of evidence was performed to assess the certainty of the results.
resultsOf 230 identified studies, 6 randomized and 2 non-randomized studies were included in the current review. The average bone volume was higher among the rhBMP-2 group at 61.11% ± 24.6% than the iliac crest group at 59.12% ± 18.59%. The calculated mean bone height was higher in the iliac crest group at 78.65% ± 14.38% than in the rhBMP-2 group at 67.5% ± 5.45%. The risk of bias reported in the studies was low to moderate. The result of the meta-analysis supported using rhBMP-2 in alveolar bone reconstruction; however, no significant association was found (mean difference: -1.24; confidence interval: -4.14 to 1.67).
conclusionsThe calculated meta-analysis reported no significant difference, and the quality of evidence measured was also moderate. Hence, more clinical trials are required to support using rhBMP-2 as an alternative to traditional techniques for treating cleft lip and palate.
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.