MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature search was performed for the studies published in the English language independently by all four authors (search team) in the Medline database through the PubMed search engine for the past 5 years. The study involved predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria for the search. The final lists of clinical trials were analyzed to determine the existing evidence and suggested the mechanism of action.
REVIEW RESULTS: The search resulted in 117 titles. After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of seven studies were found eligible for this systematic review. Out of seven, two studies were found eligible for meta-analysis whereas remaining included for the systematic review.
CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis favors socket grafting compared to control in terms of preservation of existing bone height and width. The SHA grafting showed successful bone regeneration with less connective tissue component. The histomorphometric evaluation showed a good bone regeneration associated with SHA than xenograft. Within the limitations of this meta-analysis, the synthetic GSM can be used for socket grafting.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In the wake of increasing graft materials in the market and different origin raw material sources for the preparation of graft materials, clinicians are in dilemma for selection and its use. The success of grafting depends on the selection of appropriate material with a suitable calcium/phosphate (Ca/P) ratio. The review provided available evidence for the use of SHA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic reviews with meta-analysis were included for the quality assessment using AMSTAR (assessment of multiple SRs) and Glenny et al. checklist by two independent teams. The search was limited to the Medline database archival (from January 1980 to December 2018).
RESULTS: The primary search identified 1,507 related articles. After activation of different filters, abstracts screening, and cross-referencing, finally, a total of six studies were assessed to make the overview up-to-date.
CONCLUSION: The articles scored 8 to 11 with AMSTAR and 7 to 13 with the Glenny et al. checklist. None of the published reviews received maximum scores. The methodology and heterogeneity are essential factors to assess the quality of the published literature.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: None of the included meta-analysis was registered or published protocol with Prospero or Cochrane before publication for better validity of the studies. The authors are advised to follow reporting criteria so that in the future it is possible to provide the standards of care for TMJA with the highest quality of evidence.