File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: 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

TitleDoes 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
Authors
Keywordsenamel matrix derivatives
amelogenins
access flap
suprabony defects
meta-analysis
Issue Date2014
Citation
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2014, v. 41, n. 4, p. 377-386 How to Cite?
AbstractObjective To review the effectiveness of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in the treatment of periodontal pockets of suprabony defects. Methods Randomized Clinical Trials comparing open flap debridement (OFD) versus 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. Results 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), p < 0.00001, I2 = 66%], 1.2 mm for the PPD reduction (CI: [0.8, 1.5], p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%), -0.5 mm for the REC increase (CI: [-0.8, -0.2], p = 0.003, I2 = 0%). Potential risk of bias was identified. Conclusions 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. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/230951
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.915
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.848

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGraziani, Filippo-
dc.contributor.authorGennai, Stefano-
dc.contributor.authorCei, Silvia-
dc.contributor.authorDucci, Francesco-
dc.contributor.authorDiscepoli, Nicola-
dc.contributor.authorCarmignani, Alessandro-
dc.contributor.authorTonetti, Maurizio-
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-01T06:07:14Z-
dc.date.available2016-09-01T06:07:14Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 2014, v. 41, n. 4, p. 377-386-
dc.identifier.issn0303-6979-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/230951-
dc.description.abstractObjective To review the effectiveness of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in the treatment of periodontal pockets of suprabony defects. Methods Randomized Clinical Trials comparing open flap debridement (OFD) versus 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. Results 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), p < 0.00001, I2 = 66%], 1.2 mm for the PPD reduction (CI: [0.8, 1.5], p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%), -0.5 mm for the REC increase (CI: [-0.8, -0.2], p = 0.003, I2 = 0%). Potential risk of bias was identified. Conclusions 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. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Clinical Periodontology-
dc.subjectenamel matrix derivatives-
dc.subjectamelogenins-
dc.subjectaccess flap-
dc.subjectsuprabony defects-
dc.subjectmeta-analysis-
dc.titleDoes 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-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jcpe.12218-
dc.identifier.pmid24329867-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84897609270-
dc.identifier.volume41-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage377-
dc.identifier.epage386-
dc.identifier.eissn1600-051X-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats