Enamel matrix derivative and bone grafts for periodontal regeneration of intrabony defects. A systematic review and meta-analysis

M Matarasso, V Iorio-Siciliano, A Blasi, L Ramaglia, G E Salvi, A Sculean, M Matarasso, V Iorio-Siciliano, A Blasi, L Ramaglia, G E Salvi, A Sculean

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the clinical efficacy of regenerative periodontal surgery of intrabony defects using a combination of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and bone graft compared with that of EMD alone.

Materials and methods: The Cochrane Oral Health Group specialist trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched for entries up to February 2014. The primary outcome was gain of clinical attachment (CAL). Weighted means and forest plots were calculated for CAL gain, probing depth (PD), and gingival recession (REC).

Results: Twelve studies reporting on 434 patients and 548 intrabony defects were selected for the analysis. Mean CAL gain amounted to 3.76 ± 1.07 mm (median 3.63 95 % CI 3.51-3.75) following treatment with a combination of EMD and bone graft and to 3.32 ± 1.04 mm (median 3.40; 95 % CI 3.28-3.52) following treatment with EMD alone. Mean PD reduction measured 4.22 ± 1.20 mm (median 4.10; 95 % CI 3.96-4.24) at sites treated with EMD and bone graft and yielded 4.12 ± 1.07 mm (median 4.00; 95 % CI 3.88-4.12) at sites treated with EMD alone. Mean REC increase amounted to 0.76 ± 0.42 mm (median 0.63; 95 % CI 0.58-0.68) at sites treated with EMD and bone graft and to 0.91 ± 0.26 mm (median 0.90; 95 % CI 0.87-0.93) at sites treated with EMD alone.

Conclusions: Within their limits, the present results indicate that the combination of EMD and bone grafts may result in additional clinical improvements in terms of CAL gain and PD reduction compared with those obtained with EMD alone. The potential influence of the chosen graft material or of the surgical procedure (i.e., flap design) on the clinical outcomes is unclear.

Clinical relevance: The present findings support the use of EMD and bone grafts for the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects.

References

    1. J Periodontol. 2012 Jun;83(6):707-20
    1. J Periodontol. 2007 Feb;78(2):231-8
    1. Lancet. 2005 Nov 19;366(9499):1809-20
    1. J Clin Periodontol. 2011 Apr;38(4):365-73
    1. J Periodontol. 2014 Oct;85(10):1342-50
    1. Quintessence Int. 2014 May;45(5):385-95
    1. J Periodontol. 2013 Apr;84(4):444-55
    1. Periodontol 2000. 2000 Feb;22:104-32
    1. Clin Oral Investig. 2006 Sep;10 (3):227-34
    1. J Clin Periodontol. 2005 Jan;32(1):111-7
    1. J Clin Periodontol. 2008 Sep;35(9):817-24
    1. J Periodontol. 2000 Jul;71(7):1110-6
    1. J Clin Periodontol. 2002 Apr;29(4):317-25
    1. J Periodontol. 1993 Oct;64(10):934-40
    1. J Clin Periodontol. 2007 Jun;34(6):507-13
    1. Periodontol 2000. 2015 Jun;68(1):182-216
    1. J Clin Periodontol. 2006 Dec;33(12):885-93
    1. Quintessence Int. 2014 Jun;45(6):475-87
    1. J Periodontol. 2011 Jan;82(1):62-71
    1. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(2):471-8
    1. Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Aug;16(4):1191-7
    1. J Periodontol. 2001 Sep;72(9):1157-63
    1. J Periodontol. 2002 Apr;73(4):423-32
    1. J Periodontol. 2004 Oct;75(10):1309-18
    1. J Periodontol. 2002 Apr;73(4):433-40
    1. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 07;(4):CD003875
    1. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):e1-34
    1. J Clin Periodontol. 2010 Jun;37(6):544-50
    1. Clin Oral Investig. 2011 Apr;15(2):225-32
    1. J Periodontol. 2008 Dec;79(12):2273-80
    1. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003 Feb;23(1):47-55
    1. J Clin Periodontol. 2011 Jul;38(7):652-60
    1. J Periodontol. 2003 Dec;74(12):1725-35
    1. J Clin Periodontol. 2003 May;30(5):386-93
    1. J Clin Periodontol. 2004 Dec;31(12):1092-8
    1. J Clin Periodontol. 2008 May;35(5):420-8
    1. J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29 Suppl 3:6-9; discussion 37-8
    1. J Clin Periodontol. 2006 Jan;33(1):69-75
    1. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008 Apr;28(2):153-61

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner