Frank Mayta-Tovalino, Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa, John Barja-Ore, Adrian V Hernandez
{"title":"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》。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Efficacy of Enamel Matrix Derivative in Periodontal Regeneration Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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.