Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 20, 2026
Covalent Binding of BMP-2 on Surfaces Using a Self-assembled Monolayer Approach
Published on: August 26, 2013
Efficacy of Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 in Alveolar Cleft Treatment for Children: Systematic
Ebtihal Ali A Alawami1, Fouad Alomari2, Sarah A Aloqaybi3
1College of Dentistry, Vision Colleges, Riyadh 13226, Saudi Arabia.
Background:
Alveolar bone reconstruction with recombinant protein has several advantages, including less surgical timing, and reduced infection. This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) as a treatment modality for children with cleft lip and palate compared to the conventional iliac crest bone grafting approach.
Methods:
For current systematic review and meta-analysis, five electronic databases, namely, MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect, were searched. The primary outcome measured in this review was bone volume and height after alveolar bone reconstruction surgery. The Risk of Bias Tool 2 assessed the risk of bias for randomized control trials and the Risk of Bias tool for non-randomized trials of interventions for non-randomized studies. By evaluating pooled meta-analysis, the mean difference was calculated. GRADE uncertainty of evidence was performed to assess the certainty of the results.
Results:
Of 230 identified studies, 6 randomized and 2 non-randomized studies were included in the current review. The average bone volume was higher among the rhBMP-2 group at 61.11% ± 24.6% than the iliac crest group at 59.12% ± 18.59%. The calculated mean bone height was higher in the iliac crest group at 78.65% ± 14.38% than in the rhBMP-2 group at 67.5% ± 5.45%. The risk of bias reported in the studies was low to moderate. The result of the meta-analysis supported using rhBMP-2 in alveolar bone reconstruction; however, no significant association was found (mean difference: -1.24; confidence interval: -4.14 to 1.67).
Conclusions:
The calculated meta-analysis reported no significant difference, and the quality of evidence measured was also moderate. Hence, more clinical trials are required to support using rhBMP-2 as an alternative to traditional techniques for treating cleft lip and palate.
