| 1. |
- Miron, Richard J., et al.
(author)
-
Twenty years of enamel matrix derivative : the past, the present and the future
- 2016
-
In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. - : Blackwell Munksgaard. - 0303-6979 .- 1600-051X. ; 43:8, s. 668-683
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background On June 5th, 2015 at Europerio 8, a group of leading experts were gathered to discuss what has now been 20years of documented evidence supporting the clinical use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD). Original experiments led by Lars Hammarstrom demonstrated that enamel matrix proteins could serve as key regenerative proteins capable of promoting periodontal regeneration including new cementum, with functionally oriented inserting new periodontal ligament fibres, and new alveolar bone formation. This pioneering work and vision by Lars Hammarstrom has paved the way to an enormous amount of publications related to its biological basis and clinical use. Twenty years later, it is clear that all these studies have greatly contributed to our understanding of how biologics can act as mediators for periodontal regeneration and have provided additional clinical means to support tissue regeneration of the periodontium. Aims This review article aims to: (1) provide the biological background necessary to understand the rational for the use of EMD for periodontal regeneration, (2) present animal and human histological evidence of periodontal regeneration following EMD application, (3) provide clinically relevant indications for the use of EMD and (4) discuss future avenues of research including key early findings leading to the development of Osteogain, a new carrier system for EMD specifically developed with better protein adsorption to bone grafting materials
|
|
| 2. |
- Stavropoulos, Andreas, et al.
(author)
-
Medium and Long-Term Clinical Benefits of Periodontal Regenerative/Reconstructive Procedures in Intrabony Defects : Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Studies.
- 2021
-
In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0303-6979 .- 1600-051X. ; 48:3, s. 410-430
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundSystematic reviews have established the short‐term improvements of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures compared to conventional surgical treatment in intrabony defects. However, a hierarchy of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures regarding the medium‐ to long‐term results of treatment does not exist.AimTo systematically assess the literature to answer the focused question “In periodontitis patients with intrabony defects, what are the medium‐ and long‐term benefits of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures compared with open flap debridement (OFD), in terms of clinical and/or radiographic outcome parameters and tooth retention?”Material & MethodsRandomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), reporting on clinical and/or radiographic outcome parameters of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures ≥ 3 years post‐operatively were systematically assessed. Clinical [residual probing pocket depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, tooth loss] and radiographic [residual defect depth (RDD), bone gain (RBL)] outcome parameters, were assessed. Descriptive statistics were calculated and Bayesian random‐effects network meta‐analyses (NMA) were performed where possible.ResultsThirty RCTs, presenting data 3 to 20 years after treatment with grafting, GTR, EMD, as monotherapies, combinations thereof, and/or adjunctive use of blood derived growth factor constructs, or with OFD only, were included. NMA based on 21 RCTs showed that OFD was clearly the least efficacious treatment; regenerative/reconstructive treatments resulted in significantly shallower residual PD in 4 out 8 comparisons [range of mean differences (MD): ‐2.37 to ‐0.60 mm] and larger CAL gain in 6 out 8 comparisons (range of MD: 1.26 to 2.66 mm), and combination approaches appeared as the most efficacious. Tooth loss after regenerative/reconstructive treatment was less frequent (0.4%) compared to OFD (2.8%), but the evidence was sparse. There was only sparse radiographic data not allowing any relevant comparisons.ConclusionPeriodontal regenerative/reconstructive therapy in intrabony defects results, in general, in shallower residual PD and larger CAL gain compared with OFD, translating in high rates of tooth survival, on a medium (3‐5 years) to long‐term basis (5‐20 years). Combination approaches appear, in general, more efficacious compared to monotherapy in terms of shallower residual PD and larger CAL gain. A clear hierarchy could, however, not be established due to limited evidence.
|
|
