Recombinant Human Derived Growth and Differentiating Factors in treatment of periodontal intrabony defects: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Efficacy of OFD with EMD for treatment of periodontal defects: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

In order to enhance clinical improvement of periodontal defects, the addition of enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) to open flap debridement (OFD) has been investigated. The aim of this systematic review is to figure out whether such a combination, in comparison to the treatment with OFD alone has some effects on the following outcomes: clinical attachment level gain, probing depth reduction, and gingival recessions increase.

METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane) were searched for randomized controlled trials in humans addressing the use of a combination of OFD and EMD versus a control group with OFD alone for the treatment of periodontal defects, with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up; meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were then performed.

RESULTS

From a total of 204 records screened by title and abstract, 13 studies were read full-text and eight out of them included in the meta-analysis. Some significant differences have been demonstrated both for clinical attachment level gain and probing depth reduction between test and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of periodontal defects, the addition of EMD to OFD seems to be beneficial in terms of clinical attachment level gain, probing depth reduction, promoting periodontal regeneration. However, such results should be considered with caution because of the small number of studies included in the meta-analysis and their heterogeneity.

Methodological quality of network meta-analysis in dentistry: a meta-research

This meta-research aimed to provide an overview of the methodological quality and risk of bias of network meta-analyses (NMA) in dentistry. Searches for NMA of randomized clinical trials with clinical outcomes in dentistry were performed in databases up to January 2022. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts, selected full texts, and extracted the data. The adherence to PRISMA-NMA reporting guideline, the AMSTAR-2 methodological quality tool, and the ROBIS risk of bias tool were assessed in the studies. Correlation between the PRISMA-NMA adherence and the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS results was also investigated. Sixty-two NMA studies were included and presented varied methodological quality. According to AMSTAR-2, half of the NMA presented moderate quality (n = 32; 51.6%). The adherence to PRISMA-NMA also varied. Only 36 studies (58.1%) prospectively registered the protocol. Other issues lacking of reporting were data related were data related to the NMA geometry and the assessment of results consistency, and the evaluation of risk of bias across the studies. ROBIS assessment showed a high risk of bias mainly for domains 1 (study eligibility criteria) and 2 (identification and selection of studies). Correlation coefficients between the PRISMA-NMA adherence and the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS results showed moderate correlation (rho < 0.6). Overall, NMA studies in dentistry were of moderate quality and at high risk of bias in several domains, especially study selection. Future reviews should be better planned and conducted and have higher compliance with reporting and quality assessment tools.

Clinical Research on the Safety Evaluation of Platelet-rich Plasma Treatment in Oral Diseases: A Study Protocol

Background

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a biological product obtained from autologous blood that contains growth factors, promoting the healing and regeneration of human tissues. Several oral diseases require surgical intervention, producing residual wounds that undergo a healing process, accompanied by pain, swelling, superinfections, and bone remodeling. This protocol study aims to evaluate the safety of PRP use for the following dental procedures: post-extraction socket healing, periodontal tissue regeneration, maxillary sinus floor elevation, tooth transplantation, and intentional tooth replantation.

Methods

Ten patients will be enrolled and subjected to the required treatment with the addition of PRP, after appropriate hematological and biochemical evaluations. The participants will then be subjected to an observation period of 4 weeks to monitor adverse events through clinical observation. Secondary outcomes will regard pain, and clinical evolution of the treated site. Among these, presence of infection, swelling, wound healing, stability of the transplanted tooth.

Discussion

Safety of medical procedures represents the first requirement for their introduction in routine practice. A careful evaluation of clinical response during follow-up period and registration of adverse effects is fundamental for safety confirmation and subsequent use of PRP for the proposed dental procedures.

Trial registration

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/, registry number: jRCTc030190273, jRCTc030190274, jRCTc030190275, jRCTc030190276, jRCTc030190277; Date of registration: 31 March 2020).

Efficacy of biologics for the treatment of periodontal infrabony defects: An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A large variety of biomaterials, biologics and membranes have been utilized in the past 40 years for the regenerative treatment of periodontal infrabony defects. Biologic agents have progressively gained popularity among clinicians and are routinely used for periodontal regeneration. In alignment with the goals of the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) Best Evidence Consensus (BEC) on the use of biologic mediators in contemporary clinical practice, the aim of this sytematic review was to evaluate the effect of biologic agents, specifically autogenous blood-dervied products (ABPs), enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (rhPDGF-BB), on the regenerative outcomes of infrabony defects.

METHODS

A detailed systematic search was conducted to identify eligible randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the outcomes of periodontal regenerative therapy using biologics for the treatment of infrabony defects. A frequentist mixed-modeling approach to network meta-analysis (NMA), characterized by the assessment of three individual components for the treatment of an infrabony defect (the bone graft material [BG], the biologic agent, the application of a barrier membrane) was performed to evaluate and compare the relative efficacy of the different components, on the outcomes of different therapeutic modalities of periodontal regeneration.

RESULTS

A total of 153 eligible RCTs were included, with 150 studies contributing to the NMA. The quantitative analysis showed that the addition of biologic agents to bone graft significantly improves the clinical and radiographic outcomes, as compared to BG and flap procedures alone. Barrier membranes enhanced the regenerative outcomes of BG but did not provide further benefits in combination with biologics. The type of BG (autogenous, allogeneic, xenogeneic or alloplastic) and the biologic agent (EMD, platelet-rich fibrin [PRF], platelet-rich plasma [PRP] or rhPDGF-BB) played a significant role on the final outcomes of infrabony defects. Allogeneic and xenogeneic BGs exhibited statistically significantly superior clinical gain than synthetic and autogenous BGs (p < 0.05 in all the comparisons), while rhPDGF-BB and PRF demonstrated significantly higher stability of the gingival margin (p < 0.01) and radiographic bone fill/gain (p < 0.05), together with greater, although not statistically significant, clinical attachment level gain and pocket depth reduction, than EMD and PRP. Overall, rhPDGF-BB exhibited the largest effect size for most parameters, including clinical attachment level gain, pocket depth reduction, less gingival recession and radiographic linear bone gain. Considering the relatively high number of trials presenting an unclear or high risk of bias, the strength of recommendation supporting the use of PRP was judged weak, while the recommendation for EMD, PRF and rhPDGF-BB was deemed in favor.

CONCLUSIONS

Biologics enhance the outcomes of periodontal regenerative therapy. Combination therapies involving BGs + biologics or BGs + barrier membrane demonstrated to be superior to monotherapies. The choice of the type of BG and biologic agent seems to have significant impact on the clinical and radiographic outcomes of infrabony defects.