Evidence Hub

The Effect of Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 (BMP-2) on Volumetric and Histometric Outcomes for Peri-Implant Defects in the Animal Model: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Eric Lee, Alyssa Moy, T. Nguyen, Richard T. Kao, Guo-Hao Lin

The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, 2023

2 citations

Abstract

Purpose: To study the effect of BMP-2 on the volumetric and histometric changes in peri-implant defect treatments in animal models. Materials and Methods: An electronic search of four databases and a manual search of peer-reviewed journals for relevant articles were performed. Animal studies with data that compared the volumetric and/or histometric outcomes of peri-implant defect treatment with and without the use of BMP-2 were included. Meta-analyses were performed to analyze the weighted mean difference (WMD) and confidence interval (CI) for the recorded variables. Results: After completing the search process, 21 randomized controlled trials were included. The results of the meta-analyses showed that the WMD of bone-to-implant contact (%BIC) with 4 to 8 weeks and 12 to 24 weeks of follow-up was 15.50% (95% CI = 3.28% to 27.72%, P = .01) and 16.17% (95% CI = 11.17% to 21.16%, P < .00001), respectively, favoring the BMP-2 group. The WMD for the percentage of defect fill with 4 to 8 weeks and 12 to 24 weeks of follow-up was 15.88% (95% CI = 3.90% to 27.86%, P = .009) and 10.48% (95% CI = 0.95% to 20.02%, P = .03), respectively, favoring the BMP-2 group. The WMD for the vertical bone gain with 8 to 16 weeks of follow-up was 1.63 mm (95% CI = 0.58 to 2.67 mm, P = .002), also favoring the BMP-2 group. Conclusion: This review demonstrated that the use of BMP-2 in treating peri-implant defects showed better clinical and histometric outcomes than defects not treated with BMP-2 in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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