Search

Over the past several decades, there has been a notable increase in the total number of spinal fusion procedures worldwide. Advanced spinal fusion techniques, surgical approaches, and new alternatives in grafting materials and implants, as well as autologous cellular therapies, have been widely employed for treating spinal diseases. While the potential of cellular therapies to yield better clinical results is appealing, supportive data are needed to confirm this claim. This meta‐analysis aims to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes between graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies and graft substitutes alone. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies comparing graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies and graft substitutes alone up to February 2024. The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated using the Downs and Black checklist. The following outcomes were extracted for comparison: fusion success, complications/adverse events, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Thirteen studies involving 836 patients were included, with 7 studies considered for the meta‐analysis. Results indicated that the use of graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies demonstrated higher fusion success rates at 3, 6, and 12 months, lower VAS score at 6 months, and lower ODI score at 3, 6, and 12 months. The complication rate was similar between graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies and graft substitutes alone. Although the current literature remains limited, this meta‐analysis suggests that the incorporation of cellular therapies such as bone marrow and platelet derivatives with graft substitutes is associated with a higher fusion rate and significant improvements in functional status and pain following spinal fusion. Future well‐designed randomized clinical trials are needed to definitively assess the clinical effectiveness of cellular therapies in spinal fusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aims to validate the standardized procedure for designing soft tissue substitutes (STS) adapted to optimally fit single‐tooth defects in the anterior jaws and double‐tooth defects in the posterior jaw and to compare mathematically modeled average shapes. Materials and Methods: Casts from 35 patients with 17 single‐tooth defects in anterior region and 21 double‐tooth defects in posterior region were scanned. STS were designed and sectioned in 3D slices meshes. Thickness values were documented respecting mesial‐distal and buccal‐lingual orientations. Graphs were embedded into images, and hierarchical clustering was applied to group STS according to shape and thickness. Results: STS clustered into two groups per defect type. For anterior single defects, STS (n = 4) were either a small and thin oval: 7 mm buccal‐lingual, 4–5 mm mesial‐distal direction and 1.1–1.5 mm thick or a larger oval (n = 13): 9 mm buccal‐lingual, 5–7 mm mesial‐distal and 1.6 m thick. For posterior double tooth defects, STS (n = 10) were either narrow, long and thick: 6–7 mm buccal‐lingual, 16–20 mm mesial‐distal and 2.2 thick or a wide, thinner rectangle (n = 11): 9–11 mm buccal‐lingual, 12–14 mm mesial‐distal and 1.1–1.5 mm thick. Conclusions: The study validated the standardized digital method to design grafts for soft tissue volume augmentation and identified four average shapes for anterior single‐tooth and posterior double‐tooth soft tissue defects. Clinical Significance: We developed and validated a standardized digital method to design an optimal geometrical shape of a soft tissue substitute for oral volume augmentation and combined it with mathematical modeling to identify average shapes for single‐interior, and double‐posterior tooth defects. The identified average shapes offer the possibility to produce better‐fitted xenografts or synthetic STS blocks requiring minimal chair‐side adaptation leading to reduced clinical time and patient discomfort and potentially improving soft tissue volume augmentation outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]