Related resources
Search for item elsewhere
University researcher(s)
Academic department(s)
Enamel matrix derivative for periodontal tissue regeneration in treatment of intrabony defects: a cochrane systematic review.
Esposito MA, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV
J Dent Educ. 2004;68( 8):834-44.
Access to files
Full-text and supplementary files are not available from Manchester eScholar. Use our list of Related resources to find this item elsewhere. Alternatively, request a copy from the Library's Document supply service.
Abstract
We reviewed the literature on the efficacy of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in comparison with open flap debridement, guided tissue regeneration (GTR), and bone grafting for the treatment of intrabony defects. We searched four major electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one year of follow-up. Several journals were handsearched with no language restrictions. Outcome measures were: tooth loss, changes in probing attachment levels (PAL), pocket depths (PPD), gingival recessions (REC), marginal bone levels on intraoral radiographs, and postoperative infections. Screening of eligible RCTs, assessment of the methodological quality, and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. No difference in tooth loss was observed. A meta-analysis (eight trials) showed that EMD-treated sites displayed statistically significant PAL improvements (mean difference 1.3 mm) and PPD reduction (1 mm) when compared to flap surgery. When EMD was compared to GTR (six trials), GTR showed a statistically significant reduction of PPD (0.6 mm) and increase of REC (0.5 mm). No difference in postoperative infections was observed. No trials compared EMD with bone grafts alone. EMD is able to significantly improve PAL levels and PPD reduction when compared to flap surgery; however, there is no evidence that more teeth could be saved. There was no evidence of important differences between EMD and GTR.