Scientific argumentation as a scientific practice has become an important issue in scientific concept learning. We systematically searched five databases to assess the potential of scientific argumentation to promote multidimensional conceptual change in science education. The systematic literature search and coding of studies were carried out by two independent reviewers. Our search uncovered 12 experimental studies that investigated 12 different types of scientific argumentation-based instructions (scientific argumentation-based instructions in this study referred to lesson activities). With the multidimensional framework of conceptual change developed by McLure, F., Won, M., & Treagust, D. F. ((2020), we performed a narrative synthesis assessing how each type of scientific argumentation-based instruction affected conceptual change through cognitive, ontological and intentional dimensions of learning. Our narrative synthesis suggests scientific argumentation might affect conceptual change through enhancing those dimensions of learning to varying degrees. Moreover, certain added scaffoldings might be particularly useful for enhancing a certain dimension of learning. Finally, the meta-analysis (random effect model) showed that overall, scientific argumentation-based instructions had a large positive influence on conceptual change (Hedge's "g" = 10.49 [7.27, 13.71], I2 = 47%). Overall results indicated that scientific argumentation had the potential to improve conceptual change through offering opportunities for cognitive, ontological and intentional dimensions of learning.