Methods: This study was executed using the evidence-based method. Due to our rigorous inclusion/exclusion criteria we could only identify two best-case studies involving 4 implants placed into sites grafted with coralline-derived hydroxyapatite and 60 implants placed into sites grafted with autogenous bone.
Results: Overall analysis demonstrated a 75 percent implant success rate for the coralline-derived grafting material and 97 percent for the autogenous grafting material. Success rates in the articles reviewed were based on implant survival over a follow-up period of between one to two years. A meta-analysis was generated to evaluate the presented evidence and to aid in decision-making.
Conclusion: Despite its common implementation, meta-analysis presents many limitations including poor reporting of primary studies, heterogeneity of clinical factors, and publication bias. By means of the systematic investigation of these alternative grafting materials, our results confirm that these limitations greatly affect the validity of the generated meta-analysis. Thus it is recommended that clinicians ought not base their decisions solely on the results presented by a meta-analysis generated by a few published studies. It is recommended that additional research is necessary concerning the efficacy of these alternative augmenting materials with regards to implant survivability, aiming to eliminate the various caveats present in the grafting literature used to generate meta-analyses.