METHODS: Electronic database and hand search of English literature in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, and clinical trial.gov, with author clarification were performed. The selection criteria were randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing MOPs with conventional treatment involving both extraction and nonextraction. Cochrane's risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach were used for quality assessment. Studies were analyzed with chi-square-based Q statistic methods, I2 index, fixed-effects, and random-effects model. Quantitative analysis was done on homogenous studies using Review Manager.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included for the qualitative analysis. Meta-analysis of 2 homogenous studies indicated insignificant effect with MOPs (0.01 mm less OTM; 95% CI, 0.13-0.11; P = 0.83). No difference (P >0.05) was found in anchorage loss, root resorption, gingival recession, and pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of 2 low-risk of bias studies showed no effect with single application MOPs over a short observation period; however, the overall evidence was low. The quality of evidence for MOP side effects ranged from high to low. Future studies are suggested to investigate repeated MOPs effect over the entire treatment duration for different models of OTM and its related biological changes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CDR42019118642.
DESIGN: Following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, three electronic databases were searched (Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science).
RESULTS: A total of twelve studies were included in the final review that reported on small-animal (rats, guinea pigs, rabbits) and large-animal (dogs and goats) models. Based on the grafting biomaterials, eight papers used cell-free scaffolds, four articles utilised cell-based scaffolds. The timing protocol for the initiation of OTM employed in the studies ranged from immediate to 6 months after surgical grafting. Only four studies included autologous bone graft (gold standard) as positive control. Most papers reported positive results with regards to the rate of OTM and bone augmentation effects while only a few reported side effects such as root resorptions. Overall, the included articles showed a massive heterogeneity in terms of the animal bone defect model characteristics, scaffold materials, study designs, parameters of OTM and methods of analysis.
CONCLUSION: Since there was inadequate evidence to identify the optimal protocol of OTM, optimization of animal bone defect models and outcome measurements is needed to improve the translational ability of future studies.