SynthesisBMC oral health2026
BMP-2 in oral-maxillofacial bone augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) has been widely applied in oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation procedures. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety associated with the use of BMP-2 in oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation procedures across available randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsRCTs involving BMP-2 used for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), alveolar bone augmentation, and maxillary sinus floor elevation were included. The primary outcomes included changes in bone width and height, proportion of newly formed bone and residual graft material, implant survival, and marginal bone level (MBL). Seven databases were searched up to May 1, 2026. The Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4.1 and STATA 12.0. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD420250586726).
resultsTwenty-three RCTs involving 990 participants with 1104 sites were included. Meta-analysis revealed that the use of BMP-2 was associated with significantly greater alveolar ridge width at the apical region. However, BMP-2 did not significantly enhance the proportion of new bone nor reduce residual graft material. Subgroup analyses suggested that its performance varies according to the surgical procedures and carriers. No significant differences were found between groups in implant survival, MBL or the incidence of adverse events. The majority of included studies were assessed as having some concerns or high risk of bias.
conclusionsBecause of substantial heterogeneity across the included RCTs, the overall pooled estimates should be considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating. The use of BMP-2, particularly in ARP, appears to be associated with modest improvements in alveolar bone width (at the apical region), whereas no significant differences were observed in the proportion of newly formed bone, the implant survival rate, or the incidence of adverse events. BMP-2 may be considered selectively in appropriate clinical scenarios after careful evaluation of cost, defect characteristics, and expected clinical benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42471687What 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.