SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2025
New bone formation of biphasic calcium phosphate bone substitute material: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Histological and Histomorphometric Analysis of Xenografts and Synthetic Biomaterials in Rabbit Sinus Floor Elevation.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Bone Remodeling Dynamics and Bone Vitality Following Standard Bone Augmentation Procedures: A Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Recent advances in biomaterials for bone regeneration: Bridging innovation and clinical translation.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Bone-Healing Enhancement Using Particulate Biomaterials and Fibrin-Based Compounds: A Narrative Literature Review of Evidence in Animal Models.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
objective• To systematically determine the effectiveness of biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) as bone substitute materials (BSM) compared to other BSMs for new bone formation in dental implant treatment through a network meta-analysis (NMA). MATERIALS AND
method• Following PRISMA-NMA guidelines, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on lateral sinus augmentation and dental implants comparing BCP with other BSMs for histomorphometric new bone formation were included. Studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus, and Embase (up to November 2024), with quality assessed via the Cochrane risk of bias 2 (RoB2.0) tool. Analysis included direct and network meta-analyses using a random-effects model, with SUCRA scores determining treatment rankings. The PROSPERO registration number was CRD42024607526.
results• Of 268 studies, 11 met criteria, covering 283 patients and 362 sinus augmentations using autografts (AB), allografts (AL), beta tricalcium phosphate (TCP), BCP, and xenografts (Xeno). NMA showed AB resulted in 12.33% more new bone formation than BCP (95% CI: 10.74, 13.93), with AL showing 5.14% more (95% CI: 3.33, 6.95). Xeno showed 4.14% less bone formation than BCP (95% CI: -6.38, -1.90). AB ranked highest for new bone formation, followed by AL, BCP, TCP, and Xeno. Residual graft material was highest in Xeno (6.21%; 95% CI: 2.81, 9.61).
conclusion• BCP demonstrated sufficient new bone formation, outperforming xenografts in both bone formation and residual graft material. While autografts and allografts exhibited superior bone regeneration, BCP remains an effective option for bone augmentation treatments.
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.