Regenerative Strategies in Cleft Palate: An Umbrella Review
Francisco I., Paula AB., Oliveiros B., Fernandes MH., Carrilho E., Marto CM.
Meta-analysis, published in Bioengineering (Basel) (2021) — 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) (2021)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 34205126
- PMCID
- PMC8230219
- DOI
- 10.3390/bioengineering8060076
- Citations
- 8
Abstract (original English)
(1) Background: Alveolar bone defects or decreased alveolar bone height and width may have different causes, such as cleft palate. Regenerative procedures in oro-dental defects are challenging due to anatomical factors and the distinct cell populations involved. The iliac crest bone graft remains the gold-standard for cleft palate closure. However, tissue regeneration approaches have been employed and their outcome reviewed, but no conclusions have been made about which one is the gold-standard. (2) Methods: this umbrella review aims to critically appraise the effectiveness of the current approaches in bone defects regeneration in non-syndromic patients with cleft palate. A search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science and EMBASE databases. (3) Results: Systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials with or without meta-analysis were included. Nine articles were included in the qualitative analysis and five in the quantitative one. The included studies quality was evaluated with AMSTAR2. (4) Conclusions: The use of new regenerative strategies, such as bone morphogenic protein 2, appears to provide similar results regarding bone volume, filling, and height to the standard technique with the iliac crest bone graft.
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.