Efficacy of bioactive glass versus traditional bone grafts in maxillofacial reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes

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

Abstract (original English)

The aim of this article is to identify whether bioactive glass (BG) is a valid substitute for autogenic bone grafting in maxillofacial reconstruction. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Meta-analyses with fixed- and random-effects models were performed by using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed by using the I² statistic. The significance of results was evaluated at P P = 8.74 × 10⁻⁶, I² = 0%). The resorption rate of BG grafts (SMD = -0.768, 95% CI = -1.360 to -0.176, P = 0.011, I² = 3.82%) was less common, while the retention of the biomaterial (SMD = 1.165, 95% CI = 0.540-1.790, P = 0.00026, I² = 0%) was higher in the experimental group. Both BG and autogenic grafts result in the formation of new bone to a similar extent. However, BG is able to provide long-term stability by maintaining the graft volume, reducing resorption, and preserving the graft scaffold, representing an effective alternative to autogenous bone grafting for a durable maxillofacial reconstruction.

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.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.