Clinical Application of Cell-Based Approaches in Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Han SH., Han SB., Park GS., Kim NJ., Park WJ., Park JB.
Meta-analysis, published in Bioengineering (Basel) (2025) — 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
- Bioengineering (Basel) (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 41301166
- PMCID
- PMC12650367
- DOI
- 10.3390/bioengineering12111209
Abstract (original English)
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 veri
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.