The use of enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of class II furcation defects: systematic review and meta-analysis

Porcine-derived soft block bone substitutes for the treatment of severe class II furcation-involved mandibular molars: a prospective controlled follow-up study

PURPOSE

No evidence exists regarding the advantages of periodontal regeneration treatment for furcation defects using soft block bone substitutes. Therefore, this randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of regenerative therapy using porcine-derived soft block bone substitutes (DPBM-C, test group) compared with porcine-derived particulate bone substitutes (DPBM, control group) for the treatment of severe class II furcation defects in the mandibular molar regions.

METHODS

Thirty-five enrolled patients (test group, n=17; control group, n=18) were available for a 12-month follow-up assessment. Clinical (probing pocket depth [PPD] and clinical attachment level [CAL]) and radiographic (vertical furcation defect; VFD) parameters were evaluated at baseline and 6 and 12 months after regenerative treatment. Early postoperative discomfort (severity and duration of pain and swelling) and wound healing outcomes (dehiscence, suppuration, abscess formation, and swelling) were also assessed 2 weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

For both treatment modalities, significant improvements in PPD, CAL, and VFD were found in the test group (PPD reduction of 4.1±3.0 mm, CAL gain of 4.4±2.9 mm, and VFD reduction of 4.1±2.5 mm) and control group (PPD reduction of 2.7±2.0 mm, CAL gain of 2.0±2.8 mm, and VFD reduction of 2.4±2.5 mm) 12 months after the regenerative treatment of furcation defects (P<0.05). However, no statistically significant differences were found in any of the measured clinical and radiographic parameters, and no significant differences were observed in any early postoperative discomfort and wound healing outcomes between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar to DPBM, DPBM-C showed favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes for periodontal regeneration of severe class II furcation defects in a 12-month follow-up period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0007305.

Overview of the Effect of Different Regenerative Materials in Class II Furcation Defects in Periodontal Patients

The aim of this review was to give an overview of the outcomes of the use of different regenerative materials to treat molars with class II furcation defects in patients with periodontitis in comparison with open flap debridement (OFD). A search of five databases (PubMed-Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science) was conducted up to and including January 2022. According to the PICOS guidelines, only randomized control trials (S) considering periodontal patients with at least one molar with a class II furcation involvement (P) treated with regenerative materials (I) in comparison to OFD as control treatment (C) and a minimum follow-up period of 6 months were included. Vertical clinical attachment level (VCAL) was considered as the primary outcome (O), while horizontal clinical attachment level (HCAL), horizontal probing depth (HPD) and vertical probing depth (VPD) were considered as secondary outcomes. The search through the databases initially identified 1315 articles. Only 25 of them met the eligibility criteria and were included. The studies were grouped in four macro-categories according to the material used: absorbable and non-absorbable membranes, blood derivatives and a combination of different materials. The greater part of the included studies reported a statistically significant difference in using regenerative materials when compared to OFD. The blood derivatives groups reported a range of mean changes in VCAL of 0.86-4.6 mm, absorbable membrane groups reported -0.6-3.75 mm, non-absorbable membranes groups reported -2.47-4.1 mm, multiple materials groups reported -1.5-4.87 mm and enamel matrix derivatives reported a mean change in VCAL of 1.45 mm. OFD showed a range of mean VCAL changes of -1.86-2.81 mm. Although no statistical analysis was performed, the use of regenerative materials may be considered moderately beneficial in the treatment of molars with grade II furcation involvement. However, the substantial heterogeneity in the protocols' design does not allow us to draw definitive conclusions. In addition, low levels of evidence for morbidity and patient-centered outcomes were reported.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2020 professional literature in restorative dentistry to inform busy dentists regarding noteworthy scientific and clinical progress over the past year. Each member of the committee brings discipline-specific expertise to this work to cover this broad topic. Specific subject areas addressed include prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; implant dentistry; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders (TMDs); sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence day-to-day dental treatment decisions with a keen eye on future trends in the profession. With the tremendous volume of dentistry and related literature being published today, this review cannot possibly be comprehensive. The purpose is to update interested readers and provide important resource material for those interested in pursuing greater detail. It remains our intent to assist colleagues in navigating the extensive volume of important information being published annually. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in successfully managing the dental patients they encounter.