Evidence Hub

New bone formation of biphasic calcium phosphate bone substitute material: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

Somngam C, Samartkit S, Kanchanasurakit S, Strietzel FP, Khongkhunthian P

International journal of implant dentistry, 2025

283 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Objective: • To systematically determine the effectiveness of biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) as bone substitute materials (BSM) compared to other BSMs for new bone formation in dental implant treatment through a network meta-analysis (NMA).

Materials and method: • Following PRISMA-NMA guidelines, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on lateral sinus augmentation and dental implants comparing BCP with other BSMs for histomorphometric new bone formation were included. Studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus, and Embase (up to November 2024), with quality assessed via the Cochrane risk of bias 2 (RoB2.0) tool. Analysis included direct and network meta-analyses using a random-effects model, with SUCRA scores determining treatment rankings. The PROSPERO registration number was CRD42024607526.

Results: • Of 268 studies, 11 met criteria, covering 283 patients and 362 sinus augmentations using autografts (AB), allografts (AL), beta tricalcium phosphate (TCP), BCP, and xenografts (Xeno). NMA showed AB resulted in 12.33% more new bone formation than BCP (95% CI: 10.74, 13.93), with AL showing 5.14% more (95% CI: 3.33, 6.95). Xeno showed 4.14% less bone formation than BCP (95% CI: -6.38, -1.90). AB ranked highest for new bone formation, followed by AL, BCP, TCP, and Xeno. Residual graft material was highest in Xeno (6.21%; 95% CI: 2.81, 9.61).

Conclusion: • BCP demonstrated sufficient new bone formation, outperforming xenografts in both bone formation and residual graft…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 283 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free