Dental research journal · 2024
Clinical efficacy of periosteal pedicle graft as a barrier membrane in guided tissue regeneration: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Iyer Shraddha, Sidharthan Sangamithra, Gopalakrishnan Dharmarajan, Mehta Vini, Chetana Chetana, Guruprasad Meghana, Killedar Sharvari
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The study aims to assess the clinical efficacy of periosteal pedicle graft (PPG) as a barrier membrane in guided tissue regeneration (GTR) for gingival recession, intrabony, and furcation defects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized controlled/clinical trials investigating GTR using PPG, with 6-month follow-up. Primary outcomes recorded: probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), bone fill, recession depth (RD) reduction, percentage of mean root coverage, keratinized tissue width (KTW), and bone defect area (BDA).
RESULTS: Thirteen articles were selected; 6 for recession, 2 for furcation, and 5 for intrabony. Meta-analysis was performed whenever possible, results expressed as pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs). In recession defects, the RD pooled SMD is 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) = [-0.50-1.44]), KTW pooled SMD is 1.30 (95% CI = [-0.30-2.91]), favoring PPG over the comparator. In furcation defects, PD pooled SMD is 1.12 (95% CI = [-2.77-0.52]), CAL pooled SMD is 0.71 (95% CI = [-1.09-2.50]), and bone fill pooled SMD is 0.67 (95% CI = [-3.34-4.69]) favoring PPG. In intrabony defects, PD pooled SMD is 0.54 (95% CI = [-2.12-1.04]), CAL pooled SMD is 0.23 (95% CI = [-1.13-0.68]), and BDA pooled SMD is 0.37 (95% CI = [-1.58-2.31]) favoring PPG. The results were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: The current evidence indicates that PPG constitutes a valid and reliable alternative to collagen barrier membranes for successful GTR.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized controlled/clinical trials investigating GTR using PPG, with 6-month follow-up. Primary outcomes recorded: probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), bone fill, recession depth (RD) reduction, percentage of mean root coverage, keratinized tissue width (KTW), and bone defect area (BDA).
RESULTS: Thirteen articles were selected; 6 for recession, 2 for furcation, and 5 for intrabony. Meta-analysis was performed whenever possible, results expressed as pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs). In recession defects, the RD pooled SMD is 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) = [-0.50-1.44]), KTW pooled SMD is 1.30 (95% CI = [-0.30-2.91]), favoring PPG over the comparator. In furcation defects, PD pooled SMD is 1.12 (95% CI = [-2.77-0.52]), CAL pooled SMD is 0.71 (95% CI = [-1.09-2.50]), and bone fill pooled SMD is 0.67 (95% CI = [-3.34-4.69]) favoring PPG. In intrabony defects, PD pooled SMD is 0.54 (95% CI = [-2.12-1.04]), CAL pooled SMD is 0.23 (95% CI = [-1.13-0.68]), and BDA pooled SMD is 0.37 (95% CI = [-1.58-2.31]) favoring PPG. The results were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: The current evidence indicates that PPG constitutes a valid and reliable alternative to collagen barrier membranes for successful GTR.