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

Matarasso, M; Iorio-Siciliano, V; Blasi, A; Ramaglia, L; Salvi, Giovanni Edoardo; Sculean, Anton (2015). Enamel matrix derivative and bone grafts for periodontal regeneration of intrabony defects. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical oral investigations, 19(7), pp. 1581-1593. Springer 10.1007/s00784-015-1491-7

Preview	Text Enamel matrix derivative and bone grafts for periodontal.pdf - Published Version Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (860kB) | Preview
Preview	Text Matarasso_et_al_Systematic_Review_EMD _Bone_Grafts_CLOI_Revision_21_04_2015.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (600kB) | Preview

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.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

1290 since deposited on 15 Feb 2016
176 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item