Efficacy of Enamel Matrix Derivative in Periodontal Regeneration Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-19 DOI:10.4103/ccd.ccd_97_23
Frank Mayta-Tovalino, Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa, John Barja-Ore, Adrian V Hernandez
{"title":"Efficacy of Enamel Matrix Derivative in Periodontal Regeneration Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Frank Mayta-Tovalino, Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa, John Barja-Ore, Adrian V Hernandez","doi":"10.4103/ccd.ccd_97_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on periodontal regeneration defects.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Four databases were searched until October 2021. Experimental animal studies evaluating the efficacy of EMD were used. The primary outcomes were bone formation (BF) and cementum formation (CF). The secondary outcomes were junctional epithelium (JE), gingival recession (GR), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Measures of effect were mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Random-effects model were used for all meta-analyses. The Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation tool was used to assess the risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven experimental animal studies (<i>n</i> = 40) used with a maximum follow-up period of 3 months. Compared to control, EMD did not significantly reduce BF (MD 0.02 mm; 95% CI - 1.91-1.96; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 89%). However, it increased CF (MD 1.38 mm; 95% CI 0.01-2.74; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 55%). For secondary outcomes it was found that compared to control, EMD only significantly reduced JE (MD - 0.54 mm; 95% CI - 1.06 to - 0.02; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 55%). However, the other secondary outcomes were not significant as in the case of GR (MD - 3. 88 mm; 95% CI - 68.29-60.53; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 82%), and in CAL (MD 0.02 mm; 95% CI - 0.29-0.39; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 38%). Finally, according to the risk of bias assessment, all included studies had a high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>EMD had no effect on BF values while it did not reduce CF. Otherwise, in the secondary outcomes, EMD only significantly reduced JE values and had no effect on GR and CAL.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10855512/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_97_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on periodontal regeneration defects.

Materials and methods: Four databases were searched until October 2021. Experimental animal studies evaluating the efficacy of EMD were used. The primary outcomes were bone formation (BF) and cementum formation (CF). The secondary outcomes were junctional epithelium (JE), gingival recession (GR), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Measures of effect were mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Random-effects model were used for all meta-analyses. The Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation tool was used to assess the risk of bias.

Results: Seven experimental animal studies (n = 40) used with a maximum follow-up period of 3 months. Compared to control, EMD did not significantly reduce BF (MD 0.02 mm; 95% CI - 1.91-1.96; I2 = 89%). However, it increased CF (MD 1.38 mm; 95% CI 0.01-2.74; I2 = 55%). For secondary outcomes it was found that compared to control, EMD only significantly reduced JE (MD - 0.54 mm; 95% CI - 1.06 to - 0.02; I2 = 55%). However, the other secondary outcomes were not significant as in the case of GR (MD - 3. 88 mm; 95% CI - 68.29-60.53; I2 = 82%), and in CAL (MD 0.02 mm; 95% CI - 0.29-0.39; I2 = 38%). Finally, according to the risk of bias assessment, all included studies had a high risk of bias.

Conclusion: EMD had no effect on BF values while it did not reduce CF. Otherwise, in the secondary outcomes, EMD only significantly reduced JE values and had no effect on GR and CAL.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
牙釉质基质衍生物对牙周再生缺陷的疗效:系统回顾与元分析》。
目的:评估牙釉质基质衍生物(EMD)对牙周再生缺损的疗效:截至 2021 年 10 月,共检索了四个数据库。使用了评估 EMD 疗效的动物实验研究。主要结果是骨形成(BF)和骨水泥形成(CF)。次要结果为交界上皮(JE)、牙龈退缩(GR)和临床附着水平(CAL)。疗效的衡量标准为平均差 (MD) 和 95% 置信区间 (CI)。所有荟萃分析均采用随机效应模型。实验动物实验系统综述中心工具用于评估偏倚风险:七项实验动物研究(n = 40)的随访期最长为 3 个月。与对照组相比,EMD并未显著降低BF(MD 0.02 mm; 95% CI - 1.91-1.96; I2 = 89%)。然而,它却增加了CF(MD 1.38 mm; 95% CI 0.01-2.74; I2 = 55%)。对于次要结果,研究发现,与对照组相比,EMD仅显著降低了JE(MD - 0.54 mm; 95% CI - 1.06 to - 0.02; I2 = 55%)。然而,其他次要结果并不显著,如GR(MD - 3. 88 mm; 95% CI - 68.29-60.53; I2 = 82%)和CAL(MD 0.02 mm; 95% CI - 0.29-0.39; I2 = 38%)。最后,根据偏倚风险评估,所有纳入研究的偏倚风险都很高:结论:EMD对BF值没有影响,同时也没有降低CF值。此外,在次要结果中,EMD 只显著降低了 JE 值,而对 GR 和 CAL 没有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1