Platelet-Rich Plasma in Grafted Maxillae

Residual Bone Height and New Bone Formation after Maxillary Sinus Augmentation Procedure Using Biomaterials: A Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Different factors may affect new bone formation following maxillary sinus floor augmentation for the rehabilitation of posterior edentulous maxilla. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of residual bone height (RBH) on new bone formation after lateral sinus augmentation utilizing different biomaterials, through a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

PUBMED, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched until 31 December 2022 to obtain relevant articles. A hand search was also conducted. Randomised controlled studies on maxillary sinus augmentation comparing different grafting materials in patients with atrophic posterior maxilla, in need of prosthetic rehabilitation, were included. The risk of bias was assessed following the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration. The primary outcome was new bone formation (NBF), assessed histomorphometrically. The statistical analysis was performed by splitting the data according to RBH (<4 mm and ≥4 mm).

RESULTS

A total of 67 studies were eligible for conducting NMA. Overall, in the included studies, 1955 patients were treated and 2405 sinus augmentation procedures were performed. The biomaterials used were grouped into: autogenous bone (Auto), xenografts (XG), allografts (AG), alloplasts (AP), bioactive agents (Bio), hyaluronic acid (HA), and combinations of these. An inconsistency factor (IF) seen in the entire loop of the XG, AP, and Bio+AP was found to be statistically significant. The highest-ranked biomaterials for the <4 mm RBH outcome were XG+AG, XG+AP, and Auto. Similarly, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of biomaterials for ≥4 mm RBH was Auto, Bio+XG, and XG+Auto.

CONCLUSION

There is no grafting biomaterial that is consistently performing better than others. The performance of the materials in terms of NBF may depend on the RBH. While choosing a biomaterial, practitioners should consider both patient-specific aspects and sinus clinical characteristics.

Bone-Regenerative Ability of Platelet-Rich Plasma Following Sinus Augmentation with Anorganic Bovine Bone: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effect of the adjuvant use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and its type on new bone formation by anorganic bovine bone during maxillary sinus floor augmentation procedure.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Ovid databases were searched for relevant studies published up to 16 September 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that reported data on the new bone formation (measured by histomorphometric analysis) were considered. Risk of bias and quality assessment of included studies were evaluated following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Strength of evidence was assessed following the approach of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) through its evidence-based practice center (AHRQ EPC). The meta-analysis was based on the primary outcome of newly formed bone, for which the standard mean difference was calculated.

RESULTS

After the application of eligibility criteria, six clinical trials (three RCTs and three CCTs) covering 85 maxillary sinus floor elevation procedures were included. The pooled new bone formation value for PRP was 1.67 (95% CI: -0.15 to 3.49; I2: 86%), indicating the absence of significant effect. Plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) was the pure PRP tested in five of the included studies. When sub-group (type of PRP) meta-analysis was performed, significantly higher new bone formation was observed in the PRGF group [2.85 (95% CI: 0.07 to 5.64; I2: 88%)] in comparison to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

A beneficial effect on new bone formation after maxillary sinus floor elevation can be obtained when anorganic bovine bone is mixed with PRGF.

Platelet rich plasma in oral and maxillofacial surgery from the perspective of composition

The application of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in oral and maxillofacial surgery has been thoroughly studied in the last two decades. Currently, different types of PRP are applied in the clinical practice, being the presence or absence of leukocytes one of the classification criteria. However, there is poor evidence assessing the influence of the PRP composition in their efficacy. In this context, the aim of this narrative review is to compile the existing evidence covering the efficacy of PRP in oral and maxillofacial surgery, starting from a systematic literature search and to qualitatively describe the efficacy outcomes from the composition perspective. According to the results of this review, the application of PRP in oral and maxillofacial surgery is a potential strategy to improve soft- and hard-tissue regeneration, observing differences in the efficacy of PRP depending on its composition and the studied application. P-PRP (the absence of leukocytes) has been more consistent in achieving beneficial effects in alveolar ridge preservation, management of post-extraction complications, bone augmentation and temporomandibular joint disorders. For that, the composition and methodology used to prepare the PRP should be a critical point when evaluating the efficacy of PRP.

Platelet-Rich Plasma in Maxillary Sinus Augmentation: Systematic Review

Background: Sinus augmentation can be performed with or without grafting biomaterials, and to date, there is no quality evidence regarding the augmentation of the sinus floor using only platelet concentrates, which can improve the healing period and enhance bone regeneration by stimulating angiogenesis and bone formation. The main objective of this paper was to assess the effect of the sole use of platelet concentrates in sinus augmentation in terms of newly formed bone, augmented bone height, and clinical outcomes and to assess the additional beneficial effects of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in combination with other grafting biomaterials. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Pooled analyses were performed with the Review Manager software. Results: For sinus elevation only using platelet concentrates, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for qualitative synthesis. Only one study was a clinical trial, which reported improved outcomes for the allograft group compared to the titanium-PRF (T-PRF) group. A total of 12 studies where PRF was used in addition to grafting biomaterials met eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Results from meta-analyses provided no additional beneficial effects of PRF in sinus augmentation in terms of bone height and percentage of soft tissue area. There was a statistically significant lower percentage of residual bone substitute material in the PRF (+) group compared to the PRF (−) group. The percentage of newly formed bone was slightly higher in the PRF (+) group, but this was not statistically significant. Conclusion: There is no robust evidence to make firm conclusions regarding the beneficial effects of the sole use of platelet concentrates in sinus augmentation. However, studies have shown favorable outcomes regarding implant survival, bone gain, and bone height. The use of PRF with other grafting biomaterials appears to provide no additional beneficial effects in sinus lift procedures, but they may improve the healing period and bone formation. Well-conducted randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are necessary to confirm the available results to provide recommendations for the clinical practice.

Do osteoconductive bone substitutes result in similar bone regeneration for maxillary sinus augmentation when compared to osteogenic and osteoinductive bone grafts? A systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis

The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to identify the most effective biomaterials producing higher new bone formation (NBF) and lower residual graft (RG) and connective tissue (CT) following maxillary sinus augmentation (MSA), and to generate a ranking based on their performance. The MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until March 2018, evaluating histomorphometric outcomes after MSA. Predictor variables were autogenous bone (AB), allografts (AG), xenografts (XG), alloplastic bone (AP), AB+XG, AB+AP, AG+XG, XG+AP, and grafts combined with autologous platelet concentrates/recombinant growth factors, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), or recombinant bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs). Outcome variables were NBF%, RG%, and CT%. Healing time was considered. The weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated via frequentist network meta-analysis using Stata software. Fifty-two RCTs (1483 biopsies) were included. At a healing time <6 months, AB was superior to AP (WMD-10.66%, 95% CI-16.38% to -4.94%) and XG (WMD-7.93%, 95% CI-15.11% to -0.75%) for NBF. Regarding CT, AB was superior to XG+AP, AP, MSCs, and XG. At a healing time ≥6 months, NBF was higher for AB than AP (WMD-7.06%, 95% CI-12.59% to -1.52%). RG was lower in AB than AP (WMD 12.03%, 95% CI 3.04% to 21.03%), XG (WMD 14.62%, 95% CI 4.25% to 24.98%), and growth factors (WMD 12.32%, 95% CI 0.04% to 24.60%). The three highest ranked biomaterials for increasing NBF were AG+XG (95%, very low quality evidence), growth factors (69.9%, low quality evidence), and AB alone (69.8%, moderate quality evidence). The three highest ranked biomaterials for decreasing RG were BMPs (88.8%, very low quality evidence), AB alone (81.5%, moderate quality evidence), and AB+AP (58.9%, very low quality evidence). Finally, XG+AP (84.7%, low quality evidence), AP alone (77.7%, moderate quality evidence), and MSCs (76.1%, low quality evidence), were the three highest ranked biomaterials for decreasing the amount of CT. Network meta-analysis provided moderate quality evidence that AB alone is probably the best option to obtain greater NBF after MSA in the first 6 months after surgery. Additionally, the results of this network meta-analysis support the hypothesis that osteoconductive bone substitute materials should be combined with osteogenic or osteoinductive grafts for superior histomorphometric outcomes in MSA.