ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Clinical Application of Cell-Based Approaches in Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Maxillary sinus floor augmentation is frequently performed to increase bone height for dental implants, with stem cells suggested to boost bone regeneration. Consequently, this study aimed to assess the effects of incorporating stem cells in maxillary sinus floor augmentation. Two reviewers conducted an extensive search using a mix of controlled vocabulary (MeSH) and free-text terms to locate published systematic reviews. Searches were conducted in three major electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane database) up to July 2025. Initially, 250 articles were found, but only five studies met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed a pooled standardized mean difference in new bone formation of 1.06 (95% confidence interval of -0.31 to 2.44). In a subgroup analysis comparing mesenchymal stem cells with autogenous bone, the pooled standardized mean difference was 0.88 (95% confidence interval of 0.34 to 1.42). The study's results indicated a positive trend towards better outcomes with the use of mesenchymal stem cells, although the effect was not statistically significant at the pooled level. Additionally, combining stem cells with xenograft may yield more favorable results compared to using autogenous bone with xenograft. These findings suggest potential clinical advantages, highlighting the need for further standardized research to verify long-term outcomes.
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.