Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of micrografting technology in humans

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)

AimTo critically assess the evidence on micrografting technology to evaluate its effectiveness when used alone or as an adjunct to regenerative treatment in various medical and dental applications.MethodsSeven electronic databases, including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline Ovid, Embase Ovid, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature EBSCOhost, Web of Science Core Collection, System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe, and Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, were searched until 15 July 2024. Risk of bias assessment and qualitative and quantitative (random-effect models) analyses were conducted.ResultsA total of 55 studies were identified. Most studies (n = 24) reported on burns, followed by 10 studies on ulcers/wounds, 7 on androgenetic alopecia, 3 on vitiligo, 3 on cartilage and bone defects, and 1 on coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Dental applications included sinus lift (three studies), socket preservation (two studies), and intrabody defects (two studies). A meta-analysis of four studies on the management of burns confirmed that micrografting led to reduced healing periods compared with other grafting techniques (weighted mean difference: -0.98, 95% confidence interval: -1.84 to -0.12, p = 0.03), with a high level of heterogeneity (83.57%) and risk of bias.ConclusionMicrografting technology may lead to shorter hea

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.