Comparison of the clinical efficacy of bone grafting and bone grafting combined with guided tissue regeneration in periodontal regenerative therapy: a meta-analysis.
{"title":"Comparison of the clinical efficacy of bone grafting and bone grafting combined with guided tissue regeneration in periodontal regenerative therapy: a meta-analysis.","authors":"Fengqi Zhang, Guolin Liu","doi":"10.2340/aos.v83.40255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nThis study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of simple bone grafting and bone grafting combined with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in periodontal regenerative therapy.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThe authors systematically searched PubMed, the Web of Science, The National Library of Medicine, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database and the Wanfang database and collected randomized controlled trials relating to bone graft co-guided tissue regeneration. The retrieval was conducted between January 1990 and December 2022. This study included relevant literature about the clinical efficacy of bone grafting combined with GTR according to the population, intervention, control and outcomes principle and excluded studies using other materials in addition to bone graft and membrane materials. After independently screening the literature, extracting the data and evaluating the risk of bias in the included studies, data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and, after further evaluation, a total of 327 teeth that were featured in 15 articles were finally included for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that there was no significant statistical difference in clinical attachment level, probing depth and bone gain between the test group (bone grafting with GTR) and the control group (bone grafting only) at 6 months after the operation (p > 0.05). In terms of gingival recession (GR), the use of non-resorbable membranes produced more recession in the test group compared with the control group (p < 0.05), whereas the use of resorbable membranes produced less recession (p < 0.05).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nBoth simple bone grafting and bone grafting combined with membrane materials have good clinical efficacy in periodontal regenerative therapy, and no significant difference in clinical efficacy is indicated between the two, with the exception of GR.","PeriodicalId":7313,"journal":{"name":"Acta Odontologica Scandinavica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Odontologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/aos.v83.40255","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of simple bone grafting and bone grafting combined with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in periodontal regenerative therapy.
METHODS
The authors systematically searched PubMed, the Web of Science, The National Library of Medicine, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database and the Wanfang database and collected randomized controlled trials relating to bone graft co-guided tissue regeneration. The retrieval was conducted between January 1990 and December 2022. This study included relevant literature about the clinical efficacy of bone grafting combined with GTR according to the population, intervention, control and outcomes principle and excluded studies using other materials in addition to bone graft and membrane materials. After independently screening the literature, extracting the data and evaluating the risk of bias in the included studies, data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and, after further evaluation, a total of 327 teeth that were featured in 15 articles were finally included for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that there was no significant statistical difference in clinical attachment level, probing depth and bone gain between the test group (bone grafting with GTR) and the control group (bone grafting only) at 6 months after the operation (p > 0.05). In terms of gingival recession (GR), the use of non-resorbable membranes produced more recession in the test group compared with the control group (p < 0.05), whereas the use of resorbable membranes produced less recession (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Both simple bone grafting and bone grafting combined with membrane materials have good clinical efficacy in periodontal regenerative therapy, and no significant difference in clinical efficacy is indicated between the two, with the exception of GR.