Can Mesenchymal Stem Cells Improve Bone Regeneration in Maxillary Sinus Augmentation? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Coronel-Zubiate FT., Marroquín-Soto C., Luján-Valencia SA., Meza-Málaga JM., Luján-Urviola E., Aguirre-Ipenza R.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 74, published in Stem Cells Int (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Meta-analysis
- Journal
- Stem Cells Int (2026)
- Reported sample size
- 74
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 41561408
- PMCID
- PMC12814210
- DOI
- 10.1155/sci/6656563
Abstract (original English)
Background Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have shown promise in preclinical models for enhancing bone regeneration around dental implants. However, clinical evidence regarding their efficacy in maxillary sinus augmentation procedures for dental implants remains inconclusive. Objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of MSC-based regenerative therapies compared to conventional grafting in maxillary sinus augmentation for implant placement. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023488758). Electronic and gray literature searches were performed across six databases. Eligible studies included randomized clinical trials evaluating MSC-based bone regeneration in maxillary sinus lifts. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Meta-analyses were performed for implant success rate and bone formation outcomes. Results Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, comprising 74 patients and 222 implants. Meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in implant success rate between MSC and control groups (risk ratio [RR] = 0.98; 95% confidence inte
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.