Enamel matrix derivative for periodontal tissue regeneration in treatment of intrabony defects: a Cochrane systematic review.

Marco Esposito, Paul Coulthard, Peter Thomsen, Helen V. Worthington

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    We reviewed the literature on the efficacy of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in comparison with open flap debridement, guided tissue regeneration (GTR), and bone grafting for the treatment of intrabony defects. We searched four major electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one year of follow-up. Several journals were handsearched with no language restrictions. Outcome measures were: tooth loss, changes in probing attachment levels (PAL), pocket depths (PPD), gingival recessions (REC), marginal bone levels on intraoral radiographs, and postoperative infections. Screening of eligible RCTs, assessment of the methodological quality, and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. No difference in tooth loss was observed. A meta-analysis (eight trials) showed that EMD-treated sites displayed statistically significant PAL improvements (mean difference 1.3 mm) and PPD reduction (1 mm) when compared to flap surgery. When EMD was compared to GTR (six trials), GTR showed a statistically significant reduction of PPD (0.6 mm) and increase of REC (0.5 mm). No difference in postoperative infections was observed. No trials compared EMD with bone grafts alone. EMD is able to significantly improve PAL levels and PPD reduction when compared to flap surgery; however, there is no evidence that more teeth could be saved. There was no evidence of important differences between EMD and GTR.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)834-844
    Number of pages10
    JournalJournal Of Dental Education
    Volume68
    Issue number8
    Publication statusPublished - Aug 2004

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Enamel matrix derivative for periodontal tissue regeneration in treatment of intrabony defects: a Cochrane systematic review.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this