Segmental Mandibular Reconstruction Using Tissue Engineering Strategies: A Systematic Review of Individual Patient Data
Kumar VV., Rometsch E., Thor A., Wolvius E., Hurtado-Chong A.
Systematic Review with a reported sample of 285, published in Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr (2020) — 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
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr (2020)
- Reported sample size
- 285
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 33456698
- PMCID
- PMC7797987
- DOI
- 10.1177/1943387520917511
- Citations
- 6
Abstract (original English)
Objective The aim of the systematic review was to analyze the current clinical evidence concerning the use of tissue engineering as a treatment strategy for reconstruction of segmental defects of the mandible and their clinical outcomes using individual patient data. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane Library on May 21, 2019. The eligibility criteria included patients in whom segmental mandibular reconstruction was carried out using tissue engineering as the primary treatment strategy. After screening and checking for eligibility, individual patient data were extracted to the extent it was available. Data extraction included the type of tissue engineering strategy, demographics, and indication for treatment, and outcomes included clinical and radiographic outcome measures, vitality of engineered bone, dental rehabilitation, and patient-reported outcome measures and complications. Results Out of a total of 408 articles identified, 44 articles reporting on 285 patients were included, of which 179 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The different tissue engineering treatment strategies could be broadly classified into 5 groups: "prefabrication," "cell culture," "bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) without autografts," "BMP with autografts," and "scaffolds containing autografts." Most included studies were case reports or case
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.