Next Article in Journal
Examining the Influence of Re–Used Nanofiller—Pyrolyzed Montmorillonite, on the Thermal Properties of Polypropylene–Based Engineering Nanocomposites
Next Article in Special Issue
Efficacy of Enamel Derivatives to Improve Keratinized Tissue as Adjunct to Coverage of Gingival Recessions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Cell Responses to Electrical Pulse Stimulation for Anticancer Drug Release
Previous Article in Special Issue
New Perspectives in the Use of Biomaterials for Periodontal Regeneration
Open AccessFeature PaperReview

Enamel Matrix Derivative and Autogenous Bone Graft for Periodontal Regeneration of Intrabony Defects in Humans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, 80138 Naples, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
LN and LG share the last authorship.
Materials 2019, 12(16), 2634; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12162634
Received: 22 July 2019 / Revised: 12 August 2019 / Accepted: 13 August 2019 / Published: 19 August 2019
The combination of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) with an autogenous bone graft in periodontal regeneration has been proposed to improve clinical outcomes, especially in case of deep non-contained periodontal defects, with variable results. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of EMD in combination with autogenous bone graft compared with the use of EMD alone for the regeneration of periodontal intrabony defects. A literature search in PubMed and in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was carried out on February 2019 using an ad-hoc search string created by two independent and calibrated reviewers. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a combination of EMD and autogenous bone graft with EMD alone for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects were included. Studies involving other graft materials were excluded. The requested follow-up was at least 6 months. There was no restriction on age or number of patients. Standard difference in means between test and control groups as well as relative forest plots were calculated for clinical attachment level gain (CALgain), probing depth reduction (PDred), and gingival recession increase (RECinc). Three RCTs reporting on 79 patients and 98 intrabony defects were selected for the analysis. Statistical heterogeneity was detected as significantly high in the analysis of PDred and RECinc (I2 = 85.28%, p = 0.001; I2 = 73.95%, p = 0.022, respectively), but not in the analysis of CALgain (I2 = 59.30%, p = 0.086). Standard difference in means (SDM) for CALgain between test and control groups amounted to −0.34 mm (95% CI −0.77 to 0.09; p = 0.12). SDM for PDred amounted to −0.43 mm (95% CI −0.86 to 0.01; p = 0.06). SDM for RECinc amounted to 0.12 mm (95% CI −0.30 to 0.55. p = 0.57). Within their limits, the obtained results indicate that the combination of enamel matrix derivative and autogenous bone graft may result in non-significant additional clinical improvements in terms of CALgain, PDred, and RECinc compared with those obtained with EMD alone. Several factors, including the surgical protocol used (e.g. supracrestal soft tissue preservation techniques) could have masked the potential additional benefit of the combined approach. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials, with well-defined selection criteria and operative protocols, are needed to draw more definite conclusions. View Full-Text
Keywords: intrabony defect; periodontal disease; enamel matrix derivative; autogenous bone; periodontal regeneration intrabony defect; periodontal disease; enamel matrix derivative; autogenous bone; periodontal regeneration
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Annunziata, M.; Piccirillo, A.; Perillo, F.; Cecoro, G.; Nastri, L.; Guida, L. Enamel Matrix Derivative and Autogenous Bone Graft for Periodontal Regeneration of Intrabony Defects in Humans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Materials 2019, 12, 2634.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map

1
Back to TopTop