Stem Cell-Based Tissue Engineering for Cleft Defects: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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)

This study aimed to analyze the efficacy of stem cell-based tissue engineering for the treatment of alveolar cleft (AC) and cleft palate (CP) defects in animal models.Systematic review and meta-analysis.Preclinical studies on alveolar cleft repair in maxillofacial practice.Electronic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Pre-clinical studies, where stem cell-based tissue engineering was used in the reconstruction of AC and CP in animal models were included. Quality of the selected articles was evaluated using SYRCLE (SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation).Review of alveolar cleft bone augmentation interventions in preclinical models.Outcome parameters registered were new bone formation (NBF) and/or bone mineral density (BMD).Thirteen large and twelve small animal studies on AC (21) and CP (4) reconstructions were included. Studies had an unclear-to-high risk of bias. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells were the most widely used cell source. Meta-analyses for AC indicated non-significant benefits in favor of: (1) scaffold + cells over scaffold-only (NBF P = .13); and (2) scaffold + cells over empty control (NBF P = .66; BMD P = .31). Interestingly, dog studies using regenerative grafts showed similar to superior bone formation compared to autografts. Meta analysis for the CP group was not possible.AC and CP reconstructions are

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.