Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42471687
BMP-2 in oral-maxillofacial bone augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Yang Guangzheng, Xia Yuxuan, Shi Wentao, et al. · BMC oral health · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.1186/s12903-026-09127-3
Findings
63 findings
| Population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in alveolar bone height | MD 0.52 [-0.11, 1.15] Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency 8 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Proportion of residual graft material (histomorphometry) Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.10 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.127, 95% CI -11.629 to 1.444; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 7 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Incidence of adverse events Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.10 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.774, 95% CI -0.051 to 0.069; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 12 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Marginal bone level (MBL) Sensitivity analysis, assumed ICC = 0.05 | 95% CI -0.024 to 0.421 GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Volume of newly formed alveolar bone Sensitivity analysis, assumed ICC = 0.05 Unresolved: the two extractors disagree on this row. | 95% CI -0.287 to 0.773 GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Implant survival rate | RD -0.04 [-0.08, 0.01] Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency 5 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Proportion of residual graft material (histomorphometry) Sensitivity analysis, assumed ICC = 0.30 | 95% CI -11.654 to 1.472 GRADE not reported 7 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Incidence of adverse events Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.05 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.774, 95% CI -0.051 to 0.069; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 12 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Change in alveolar bone height Sensitivity analysis, assumed ICC = 0.30 | 95% CI -0.111 to 1.15 GRADE not reported 8 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Proportion of residual graft material (histomorphometry) | MD -5.09 [-11.64, 1.46] Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency 7 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Incidence of adverse events | RD 0.01 [-0.05, 0.07] Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision 12 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Implant survival rate Sensitivity analysis, assumed ICC = 0.30 | 95% CI -0.081 to 0.009 GRADE not reported 5 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Marginal bone level (MBL) Sensitivity analysis, assumed ICC = 0.10 | 95% CI -0.028 to 0.433 GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Proportion of residual graft material (histomorphometry) Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.05 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.126, 95% CI -11.623 to 1.437; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 7 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in middle alveolar bone width Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.10 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.058, 95% CI -0.024 to 1.493; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 6 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Proportion of newly formed bone (histomorphometry) Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.10 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.438, 95% CI -4.192 to 9.673; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 9 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in middle alveolar bone width | MD 0.73 [-0.03, 1.49] Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency 6 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in apical alveolar bone width Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.10 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.006, 95% CI 0.122 to 0.717; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 6 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in apical alveolar bone width Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.05 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.006, 95% CI 0.123 to 0.717; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 6 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Volume of newly formed alveolar bone Sensitivity analysis, assumed ICC = 0.30 | 95% CI -0.286 to 0.773 GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Volume of newly formed alveolar bone Unresolved: the two extractors disagree on this row. | ES 0.24 [-0.29, 0.77] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in middle alveolar bone width Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.05 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.058, 95% CI -0.024 to 1.494; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 6 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in coronal alveolar bone width Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.30 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.154, 95% CI -0.286 to 1.812; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 7 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Implant survival rate Longest available follow-up per study (up to 17 years) · Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.05 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.140, 95% CI -0.077 to 0.011; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 5 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Proportion of newly formed bone (histomorphometry) Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.05 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.434, 95% CI -4.154 to 9.668; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 9 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in coronal alveolar bone width Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.10 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.153, 95% CI -0.284 to 1.814; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 7 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Marginal bone level (MBL) | MD 0.19 [-0.02, 0.39] Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in alveolar bone height Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.05 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.104, 95% CI -0.107 to 1.148; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 8 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in apical alveolar bone width | MD 0.42 [0.12, 0.72] Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias 6 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Proportion of newly formed bone (histomorphometry) | MD 2.71 [-4.26, 9.68] Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency 9 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Incidence of adverse events Sensitivity analysis, assumed ICC = 0.30 | 95% CI -0.051 to 0.069 GRADE not reported 12 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in alveolar bone height Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.10 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.104, 95% CI -0.108 to 1.149; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 8 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Marginal bone level (MBL) Sensitivity analysis, assumed ICC = 0.30 | 95% CI -0.039 to 0.475 GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in coronal alveolar bone width | MD 0.76 [-0.28, 1.81] Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency 7 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Volume of newly formed alveolar bone Sensitivity analysis, assumed ICC = 0.10 Unresolved: the two extractors disagree on this row. | 95% CI -0.287 to 0.773 GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Implant survival rate Longest available follow-up per study (up to 17 years) · Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.10 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.137, 95% CI -0.077 to 0.011; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 5 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in coronal alveolar bone width Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.05 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.152, 95% CI -0.283 to 1.814; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 7 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in apical alveolar bone width Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.30 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.006, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.716; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 6 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Proportion of newly formed bone (histomorphometry) Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.30 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.453, 95% CI -4.319 to 9.674; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 9 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in middle alveolar bone width Sensitivity analysis: assumed ICC = 0.30 for site-level clustering | Supplemental Table 2: P = 0.059, 95% CI -0.026 to 1.49; interpretation changed: No GRADE not reported 6 studies |
| Patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in coronal alveolar bone width ARP | MD 2.15 [0.97, 3.33] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in apical alveolar bone width ARP | MD 0.50 [0.18, 0.82] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Incidence of adverse events Surgical procedure: alveolar ridge preservation | RD 0.02 [-0.11, 0.15] GRADE not reported 4 studies |
| Patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in alveolar bone height ARP | MD 1.01 [0.69, 1.34] GRADE not reported 4 studies |
| Patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in middle alveolar bone width ARP | MD 1.19 [0.62, 1.76] GRADE not reported 4 studies |
| Patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Proportion of residual graft material (histomorphometry) ARP | MD -4.87 [-8.39, -1.34] GRADE not reported 4 studies |
| Patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Proportion of newly formed bone (histomorphometry) ARP | MD 12.20 [3.95, 20.45] GRADE not reported 4 studies |
| Patients undergoing alveolar bone augmentation | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in apical alveolar bone width Alveolar bone augmentation | MD -0.11 [-0.96, 0.74] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing alveolar bone augmentation | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Proportion of newly formed bone (histomorphometry) Alveolar bone augmentation | MD -12.30 [-37.57, 12.98] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Patients undergoing alveolar bone augmentation | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Implant survival rate Surgical procedure: alveolar bone augmentation | RD 0.0 [-0.05, 0.05] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Patients undergoing alveolar bone augmentation | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in coronal alveolar bone width Alveolar bone augmentation | MD 0.41 [-0.20, 1.02] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Patients undergoing alveolar bone augmentation | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Incidence of adverse events Surgical procedure: alveolar bone augmentation | RD 0.0 [-0.08, 0.09] GRADE not reported 4 studies |
| Patients undergoing maxillary sinus floor elevation | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Change in alveolar bone height Sinus augmentation | MD -0.72 [-2.28, 0.84] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Patients undergoing maxillary sinus floor augmentation | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Implant survival rate Surgical procedure: sinus augmentation | RD -0.09 [-0.15, -0.03] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing maxillary sinus floor elevation | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Proportion of residual graft material (histomorphometry) Sinus augmentation | MD -14.02 [-34.01, 5.97] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing maxillary sinus floor augmentation | Bone graft material with BMP-2 (rhBMP-2 on a carrier) | Same or comparable graft material without BMP-2 | Incidence of adverse events Surgical procedure: sinus augmentation | RD -0.01 [-0.15, 0.12] GRADE not reported 4 studies |
| Patients undergoing maxillary sinus floor elevation | BMP-2 delivered with a carrier graft material (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM, ACS or autogenous bone) | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 | Proportion of newly formed bone (histomorphometry) Sinus augmentation | MD -0.33 [-16.65, 15.99] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 with ACS carrier | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 (control graft material) | Proportion of newly formed bone (histomorphometry) Carrier: ACS | MD -7.51 [-12.42, -2.60] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 with beta-TCP carrier | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 (control graft material) | Proportion of residual graft material (histomorphometry) Carrier: beta-TCP | MD -5.03 [-9.55, -0.52] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 with beta-TCP carrier | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 (control graft material) | Proportion of newly formed bone (histomorphometry) Carrier: beta-TCP | MD 9.67 [1.05, 18.29] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 with DBBM carrier | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 (control graft material) | Proportion of newly formed bone (histomorphometry) Carrier: DBBM | MD -17.63 [-66.63, 31.37] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 with HA carrier | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 (control graft material) | Proportion of residual graft material (histomorphometry) Carrier: HA | MD -4.38 [-8.58, -0.17] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation (alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation) | BMP-2 with HA carrier | Same or clinically comparable grafting material without BMP-2 (control graft material) | Proportion of newly formed bone (histomorphometry) Carrier: HA | MD 12.21 [1.36, 23.05] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
Included primary studies 23
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boyne 2005 De novo bone induction by recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in maxillary sinus floor augmentation. PMID:16297689 | 2005 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Coomes 2014 Buccal bone formation after flapless extraction: a randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing recombinant human bone morphogenetic… PMID:23826643 | 2014 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| de Freitas 2013 Horizontal ridge augmentation of the atrophic anterior maxilla using rhBMP-2/ACS or autogenous bone grafts: a proof-of-concept randomized… PMID:23998375 | 2013 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Fiorellini 2005 Randomized study evaluating recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for extraction socket augmentation. PMID:15857102 | 2005 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Jung 2009 A randomized-controlled clinical trial evaluating clinical and radiological outcomes after 3 and 5 years of dental implants placed in bone… PMID:19489935 | 2009 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kim H.J. 2015 Efficacy of rhBMP-2/Hydroxyapatite on Sinus Floor Augmentation: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. PMID:26185033 | 2015 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Nam 2017 Randomised controlled clinical trial of augmentation of the alveolar ridge using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 with… PMID:28864147 | 2017 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Thoma 2019 Randomized, controlled clinical two-centre study using xenogeneic block grafts loaded with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2… PMID:29150957 | 2018 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Triplett 2009 Pivotal, randomized, parallel evaluation of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2/absorbable collagen sponge and autogenous bone… PMID:19686934 | 2009 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Bienz 2021 Primary bone augmentation leads to equally stable marginal tissue conditions comparing the use of xenograft blocks infused with BMP-2 and… PMID:34543475 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| de Freitas 2016 Histological analysis and gene expression profile following augmentation of the anterior maxilla using rhBMP-2/ACS versus autogenous bone… PMID:27440671 | 2016 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Han 2021 Efficacy and safety of rhBMP/β-TCP in alveolar ridge preservation: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, comparative,… PMID:34928477 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Huh 2011 Randomized clinical trial on the efficacy of Escherichia coli-derived rhBMP-2 with β-TCP/HA in extraction socket. PMID:22053248 | 2011 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Jung 2003 Effect of rhBMP-2 on guided bone regeneration in humans. PMID:12969359 | 2003 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Jung 2022 Informative title: Guided bone regeneration with and without rhBMP-2: 17-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. PMID:34958487 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kao 2012 The negative effect of combining rhBMP-2 and Bio-Oss on bone formation for maxillary sinus augmentation. PMID:22254226 | 2012 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kim M.S. 2015 Prospective randomized, controlled trial of sinus grafting using Escherichia-coli-produced rhBMP-2 with a biphasic calcium phosphate… PMID:25186180 | 2015 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Reddy 2025 Effectiveness of Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 in Socket Preservation: A Randomized Controlled Clinical and Sequential… PMID:40388262 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Shim 2018 Comparative Evaluation of Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2/Hydroxyapatite and Bovine Bone for New Bone Formation in Alveolar… PMID:30199421 | 2018 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Sun 2023 Radiographic and histological evaluation of bone formation induced by rhBMP-2-incorporated biomimetic calcium phosphate material in… PMID:37843657 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Thoma 2018 Randomized clinical study using xenograft blocks loaded with bone morphogenetic protein-2 or autogenous bone blocks for ridge augmentation… PMID:31172607 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Wei 2025 The Clinical Efficacy and Safety of ErhBMP-2/BioCaP/β-TCP as a Novel Bone Substitute Using the Tooth-Extraction-Socket-Healing Model: A… PMID:39478364 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Yang 2019 Void space and long-term volumetric changes of maxillary sinus floor augmentation with comparison between hydroxyapatite soaked with bone… PMID:31395420 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
| Review | Shared studies | Jaccard |
|---|---|---|
| Use of cells and/or biologics combined with scaffolds in alveolar bone augmentation for implant site development. (2026) | 9 | 0.06 |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial bone augmentation: alveolar ridge preservation, alveolar bone augmentation, maxillary sinus floor elevation | 23 RCTs, 990 participants with 1104 sites: ARP (n=8 studies), alveolar bone augmentation (n=9), maxillary sinus floor augmentation (n=6) |
| Intervention | BMP-2 delivered with prespecified carriers (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, beta-TCP/HA, BCP, BioCaP/beta-TCP, DBBM, ACS, autogenous bone) | rhBMP-2 with TCP/beta-TCP, HA, BCP, DBBM or ACS carriers (BMP-2 dose mostly 1.5 mg/mL) |
| Comparison | Same or clinically comparable grafting materials without BMP-2 (TCP/beta-TCP, HA, DBBM, ACS, autogenous bone) | Carrier material without BMP-2: beta-TCP, HA, DBBM, ACS, BCP, autogenous bone block (ABB) or ABB with DBBM/allograft |
| Outcomes | Primary: change in alveolar bone width and height, proportion of newly formed bone, proportion of residual graft material, implant survival rate, marginal bone level. Secondary: volume of newly formed bone, incidence of adverse events | Bone width coronal/middle/apical (n=7/6/6), bone height (n=8), new bone proportion (n=9), residual graft (n=7), volume of new bone (n=2), implant survival (n=5), MBL (n=2), adverse events (n=12) |
| Study designs | RCTs | RCTs (23) |
| Timing | Minimum follow-up of 4 weeks | 6 weeks to 17 years |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Low | Low | yes |