Does enamel matrix derivative application provide additional clinical benefits in residual periodontal pockets associated with suprabony defects? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials. (22nd January 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Graziani, Filippo; Gennai, Stefano; Cei, Silvia; Ducci, Francesco; Discepoli, Nicola; Carmignani, Alessandro; Tonetti, Maurizio
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical periodontology. Volume 41:Number 4(2014:Apr.)
• Page Start: 377
• Page End: 386
• Publication Date: 2014-01-22
• Subjects: Periodontics -- Periodicals; 617.6
• DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12218
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0303-6979

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="jcpe12218-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="jcpe12218-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Objective</title> <p>To review the effectiveness of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in the treatment of periodontal pockets of suprabony defects.</p> </sec> <sec id="jcpe12218-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>Randomized Clinical Trials comparing open flap debridement (OFD) <italic>versus </italic>EMD in periodontal suprabony defects were identified through electronic and manual search. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted. The primary outcome measures were tooth survival (TS) and clinical attachment level (CAL) gain. Pocket probing depth (PPD) reduction and recession (REC) increase were secondary outcome measures. Information concerning clinical and radiological bone gain was also collected.</p> </sec> <sec id="jcpe12218-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>The search identified 1170 studies, three articles reporting on (99 subjects/358 teeth) met the inclusion criteria and were included. No tooth was lost during follow‐up (8–12 months). The adjunctive mean benefit of EMD was: 1.2 mm for CAL gain [confidence interval (CI): (0.9, 1.4), <italic>p</italic> < 0.00001, I<sup>2</sup> = 66%], 1.2 mm for the PPD reduction (CI: [0.8, 1.5], <italic>p</italic> < 0.0001, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%), −0.5 mm for the REC increase (CI: [−0.8, −0.2], <italic>p</italic> = 0.003, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Potential risk of bias was identified.</p> </sec> <sec id="jcpe12218-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>No differences were noted in TS but EMD application resulted in clinical and radiographic additional benefits compared to OFD alone. Nevertheless, the paucity of data, the risk of methodological and potential publication bias suggests caution in interpreting these results while supporting multicenter studies for this specific application.</p> </sec> </abstract>