Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2012
The use of enamel matrix derivative alone versus in combination with bone grafts to treat patients with periodontal intrabony defects: a meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание 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.
Li Wenyang, Xiao Lin, Hu Jing
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The authors performed a meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) used in combination with various bone grafts with EMD alone in patients with intrabony defects.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors retrieved relevant studies through Sept. 30, 2011, from MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The main clinical outcomes were probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction, clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, gingival recession (REC) increase and defect fill gain. The authors performed two separate meta-analyses, according to the length of follow-up. They also conducted subgroup analyses regarding the study designs and surgical procedures used.
RESULTS: The authors included 11 studies in their meta-analysis. At six to eight months' follow-up, pooled estimates showed that there was no significant difference regarding PPD reduction (P = .62) and CAL gain (P = .23) among the treatment groups, but there was a significant difference regarding defect fill gain and REC increase. At 12 months' follow-up, pooled estimates revealed no significant differences regarding PPD reduction (P = .29), CAL gain (P = .15) and REC increase (P = .30) between the groups, but the authors still detected a significant difference for defect fill gain.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In trials with a short-term follow-up, the combination therapies yielded better clinical outcomes regarding defect fill gain and REC increase compared with EMD alone, whereas most clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups in the long run. The additional benefits from using combination therapies to promote periodontal tissue regeneration need to be confirmed.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors retrieved relevant studies through Sept. 30, 2011, from MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The main clinical outcomes were probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction, clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, gingival recession (REC) increase and defect fill gain. The authors performed two separate meta-analyses, according to the length of follow-up. They also conducted subgroup analyses regarding the study designs and surgical procedures used.
RESULTS: The authors included 11 studies in their meta-analysis. At six to eight months' follow-up, pooled estimates showed that there was no significant difference regarding PPD reduction (P = .62) and CAL gain (P = .23) among the treatment groups, but there was a significant difference regarding defect fill gain and REC increase. At 12 months' follow-up, pooled estimates revealed no significant differences regarding PPD reduction (P = .29), CAL gain (P = .15) and REC increase (P = .30) between the groups, but the authors still detected a significant difference for defect fill gain.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In trials with a short-term follow-up, the combination therapies yielded better clinical outcomes regarding defect fill gain and REC increase compared with EMD alone, whereas most clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups in the long run. The additional benefits from using combination therapies to promote periodontal tissue regeneration need to be confirmed.