title: Comparing alveolar bone regeneration using Bio-Oss and autogenous bone grafts in humans: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Bone regeneration grafts (BRG) are widely used in the treatment of osseous defects and oral surgery. The various techniques and associated success rates of bone augmentation require evaluation by systematic review and meta-analysis of eligible studies. The aim of this systematic review was to compare alveolar bone regeneration in humans using Bio-Oss and autogenous bone graft.
  
  
  METHODS
  The computerized bibliographical databases including Pubmed, Google, ScienceDirect and Cochrane were searched for randomized and cohort studies in which autogenous grafts were compared to Bio-Oss in the treatment of periodontal defects. The inclusion criteria were human studies in English that were published 1998-2009. Exclusion criteria included non randomized observation and cohort studies, papers which provided summary statistics without the variance estimates, and studies that did not use BRG intervention alone, were excluded. The screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were collected by two observers independently. For comparing autogenous grafts used alone against Bio-Oss used alone 5 situations were investigated. Thirteen studies were included in the review which compared autogenous against Bio-Oss, autogenous combined with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) against GTR, Bio-Oss combined with GTR versus GTR, autogenous alone versus Open Flap Debridement (OFD), Bio-Oss versus OFD. In meta-analysis, changes in bone level (bone fill) was used as the measure. Data were analyzed using Bayesian meta-analysis by WinBUGS and Boa software.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Only one comparison demonstrated that the difference in bone augmentation between Bio-Oss and OFD was statistically significant.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is insufficient evidence to show that Bio-Oss is superior to autogenous grafts in bone augmentation techniques however autogenous bone involves donor site surgery and thus donor site morbidity, so we can conclude that Bio-Oss is better than autogenous for alveolar regeneration. [Iranian Endodontic Journal 2009;4(4):125-30].
authors.affiliation: Department of Biostatistics, Paramedical School, Iranian Center for Endodontic Research, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
authors.forename: Alireza
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Akbarzadeh Baghban
authors.forename: Azam
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Dehghani
authors.forename: Farzin
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Ghanavati
authors.forename: Farid
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Zayeri
authors.forename: Farzam
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Ghanavati
keywords: Autogenous grafts; Bio-Oss; Bone regeneration; Intrabony defect; Meta-analysis; Systematic review
references.citation: Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003 Apr;14(2):166-72
references.pmid: 12656875
references.citation: J Clin Periodontol. 2003 Jun;30(6):486-95
references.pmid: 12795786
references.citation: Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977;16:1-132
references.pmid: 356184
references.citation: J Periodontol. 2002 Jan;73(1):39-44
references.pmid: 29539014
references.citation: Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Apr;16(2):176-84
references.pmid: 15777327
references.citation: J Periodontol (1930). 1965 Jan-Feb;36:5-14
references.pmid: 14258507
references.citation: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2004 Dec;24(6):555-63
references.pmid: 15626318
references.citation: Periodontol 2000. 1999 Feb;19:74-86
references.pmid: 10321217
references.citation: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005 Dec;34(8):877-84
references.pmid: 15978776
references.citation: J Periodontol. 1999 Sep;70(9):1000-7
references.pmid: 10505802
references.citation: Implant Dent. 2002;11(4):370-5
references.pmid: 12518705
references.citation: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998 Mar-Apr;13(2):219-26
references.pmid: 9581408
references.citation: J Clin Periodontol. 1976 May;3(2):104-9
references.pmid: 777049
references.citation: J Clin Periodontol. 2000 Dec;27(12):889-96
references.pmid: 11140555
references.citation: Clin Oral Investig. 2004 Jun;8(2):70-4
references.pmid: 14767696
references.citation: J Periodontol. 1998 Mar;69(3):303-13
references.pmid: 9579616
references.citation: Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Oct;18(5):552-62
references.pmid: 17608739
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Feb;(395):110-20
references.pmid: 11937870
references.citation: Periodontol 2000. 1993 Feb;1:80-91
references.pmid: 9673211
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD003607
references.pmid: 12917975
references.citation: J Clin Periodontol. 1982 Mar;9(2):141-7
references.pmid: 6951839
references.citation: J Clin Periodontol. 1982 Jul;9(4):290-6
references.pmid: 6964676
references.citation: Compendium. 1994 Jun;15(6):698, 700, 702-4 passim; quiz 710
references.pmid: 7994726
references.citation: Ann Periodontol. 1996 Nov;1(1):621-66
references.pmid: 9118274
references.citation: Clin Oral Implants Res. 1991 Oct-Dec;2(4):159-65
references.pmid: 8597617
references.citation: J Periodontol. 2002 Feb;73(2):158-66
references.pmid: 11895280