Favorable Periodontal Regenerative Outcomes From Teeth With Presurgical Mobility: A Retrospective Study

Influence of mobility on the long-term risk of tooth extraction/loss in periodontitis patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to assess whether tooth mobility (TM) increases the risk of tooth extraction/loss. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42023485425). The focused PECO questions were as follows: (1) "In patients with periodontitis, undergoing periodontal treatment, are teeth affected by mobility at higher risk of being extracted/lost compared to non-mobile teeth, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years?" and (2) "In these patients, does varying degrees of tooth mobility increase the risk of tooth extraction/loss, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years?". Results were reported according to PRISMA statement. Electronic and manual searches were conducted to identify longitudinal studies. The different assessments of tooth mobility were pooled into three groups: TM0: Undetectable tooth mobility, TM1: Horizontal/Mesio-distal mobility ≤1 mm, TM2: Horizontal/Mesio-distal mobility >1 mm or vertical tooth mobility. Tooth loss was the primary outcome. Various meta-analyses were conducted, including subgroup analyses considering different follow-up lengths and the timing of TM assessment, along with sensitivity analyses. A trial sequential analysis was also performed. Eleven studies were included (1883 patients). The mean follow-up range was 10-25 years. The weighted total of included teeth, based on the sample size, was 18 918, with a total of 1604 (8.47%) extracted/lost teeth. The overall rate of tooth extraction/loss increased with increasing mobility: TM0 was associated with a 5.85% rate (866/14822), TM1 with the 11.8% (384/3255), TM2 with the 40.3% (339/841). Mobile teeth (TM1/TM2) were at an increased risk for tooth extraction/loss, compared to TM0 (HR: 2.85; [95% CI 1.88-4.32]; p < .00001). TM1 had a higher risk than TM0 (HR: 1.96; [95% CI 1.09-3.53]; p < .00001). TM2 had a higher risk than TM1 (HR: 2.85; [95% CI 2.19-3.70]; p < .00001) and TM0 (HR: 7.12; [95% CI 3.27-15.51]; p < .00001). The results of the tests for subgroup differences were not significant. Sensitivity meta-analyses yielded consistent results with other meta-analyses. Within the limits of the quality of the studies included in the meta-analyses, mobile teeth were at higher risk of being extracted/lost in the long-term and higher degrees of TM significantly influenced clinicians' decision to extract a tooth. However, most teeth can be retained in the long-term and thus TM should not be considered a reason for extraction or a risk factor for tooth loss, regardless of the degree of TM.

Complications and treatment errors related to regenerative periodontal surgery

Regenerative periodontal surgical procedures are an important component in the treatment of advanced periodontitis. They aim to improve the long-term prognosis of teeth that are periodontally compromised by the presence of intrabony and/or furcation defects, resulting biologically in formation of root cementum, periodontal ligament, and alveolar bone and evidenced clinically by reduction of deep pockets to maintainable probing depths and/or improvements of vertical and horizontal furcation depth. Over the last 25 years, substantial clinical evidence has been accumulated to support the value of regenerative procedures in periodontally compromised dentitions. However, treatment success requires close attention to certain factors on the level of the patient, the tooth/defect, and the operator. Ignoring these factors in case selection, treatment planning, and treatment execution will increase the risk of complications that may jeopardize clinical success and may even be considered as treatment errors. Based on the currently available evidence from clinical practice guidelines, treatment algorithms, and on expert opinion, the present article provides an overview on the main factors, which influence the outcomes of regenerative periodontal surgery and gives recommendations on how to prevent complications and treatment errors.

Influence of aging on periodontal regenerative therapy using enamel matrix derivative: A 3-year prospective cohort study

AIM

To investigate the influence of chronological aging on periodontal regenerative therapy (PRT) outcomes with enamel matrix derivative (EMD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 253 intra-bony defects (151 patients) including 44 furcation involvement were prospectively investigated for 3 years after regenerative therapy with EMD by evaluating probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and radiographic bone defect depth (RBD). The influence of age on these outcomes was assessed using multilevel regression analyses adjusting for confounders.

RESULTS

Participants' mean age was 55.9 ± 12.3 years (range: 22-85). Baseline PPD, CAL, and RBD were 6.14 ± 1.82, 7.22 ± 2.14, and 5.08 ± 2.04 mm, respectively. Significant improvement was observed with PPD reductions of 2.84 ± 1.73 and 2.87 ± 1.87 mm, CAL gains of 2.40 ± 1.87 and 2.47 ± 1.89 mm, and RBD gains of 1.76 ± 1.98 and 2.39 ± 2.41 mm at 1- and 3-year examinations, respectively. At the 1-year examination, multivariate analysis revealed a significant negative association between age and improvement in PPD and CAL (coefficients: -0.13, -0.23 mm per 10 years). However, by the 3-year examination, no significant association was noted between age and improvement in PPD, CAL, or RBD.

CONCLUSION

Although the statistical difference was detected with age at 1-year examination, PRT with EMD significantly improved clinical outcomes on long-term observation, irrespective of the patient's age.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000039846.

Tissue engineered periodontal products

Attainment of periodontal regeneration is a significant clinical goal in the management of advanced periodontal defects arising from periodontitis. Over the past 30 years numerous techniques and materials have been introduced and evaluated clinically and have included guided tissue regeneration, bone grafting materials, growth and other biological factors and gene therapy. With the exception of gene therapy, all have undergone evaluation in humans. All of the products have shown efficacy in promoting periodontal regeneration in animal models but the results in humans remain variable and equivocal concerning attaining complete biological regeneration of damaged periodontal structures. In the early 2000s, the concept of tissue engineering was proposed as a new paradigm for periodontal regeneration based on molecular and cell biology. At this time, tissue engineering was a new and emerging field. Now, 14 years later we revisit the concept of tissue engineering for the periodontium and assess how far we have come, where we are currently situated and what needs to be done in the future to make this concept a reality. In this review, we cover some of the precursor products, which led to our current position in periodontal tissue engineering. The basic concepts of tissue engineering with special emphasis on periodontal tissue engineering products is discussed including the use of mesenchymal stem cells in bioscaffolds and the emerging field of cell sheet technology. Finally, we look into the future to consider what CAD/CAM technology and nanotechnology will have to offer.

Periodontal regeneration - intrabony defects: a systematic review from the AAP Regeneration Workshop

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews of periodontal regeneration with bone replacement grafts and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) were defined as state of the art for clinical periodontal regeneration as of 2002.

METHODS

The purpose of this systematic review is to update those consensus reports by reviewing periodontal regeneration approaches developed for the correction of intrabony defects with the focus on patient-, tooth-, and site-centered factors, surgical approaches, surgical determinants, and biologics. This review adheres to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for systematic reviews. A computerized search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed to evaluate the clinically available regenerative approaches for intrabony defects. The search included screening of original reports, review articles, and reference lists of retrieved articles and hand searches of selected journals. All searches were focused on clinically available regenerative approaches with histologic evidence of periodontal regeneration in humans published in English. For topics in which the literature is lacking, non-randomized observational and experimental animal model studies were used. Therapeutic endpoints examined included changes in clinical attachment level, changes in bone level/fill, and probing depth. For purposes of analysis, change in bone fill was used as the primary outcome measure, except in cases in which this information was not available. The SORT (Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy) grading scale was used in evaluating the body of knowledge.

RESULTS

1) Fifty-eight studies provided data on patient, tooth, and surgical-site considerations in the treatment of intrabony defects. 2) Forty-five controlled studies provided outcome analysis on the use of biologics for the treatment of intrabony defects.

CONCLUSIONS

1) Biologics (enamel matrix derivative and recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB plus β-tricalcium phosphate) are generally comparable with demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft and GTR and superior to open flap debridement procedures in improving clinical parameters in the treatment of intrabony defects. 2) Histologic evidence of regeneration has been demonstrated with laser therapy; however, data are limited on clinical predictability and effectiveness. 3) Clinical outcomes appear most appreciably influenced by patient behaviors and surgical approach rather than by tooth and defect characteristics. 4) Long-term studies indicate that improvements in clinical parameters are maintainable up to 10 years, even in severely compromised teeth, consistent with a favorable/good long-term prognosis.

Periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative in reconstructive periodontal therapy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) is commonly used in periodontal therapy. The aim of this systematic review is to give an updated answer to the question of whether the additional use of EMD in periodontal therapy is more effective compared with a control or other regenerative procedures.

METHODS

A literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed) for the use of EMD in periodontal treatment was performed up to May 2010. The use of EMD in treatment of intrabony defects, furcations, and recessions was evaluated. Only randomized controlled trials with ≥1 year of follow-up were included. The primary outcome variable for intrabony defects was the change in clinical attachment level (CAL), for furcations the change in horizontal furcation depth, and for recession complete root coverage.

RESULTS

After screening, 27 studies (20 for intrabony defects, one for furcation, and six for recession) were eligible for the review. A meta-analysis was performed for intrabony defects and recession. The treatment of intrabony defects with EMD showed a significant additional gain in CAL of 1.30 mm compared with open-flap debridement, EDTA, or placebo, but no significant difference compared with resorbable membranes was shown. The use of EMD in combination with a coronally advanced flap compared with a coronally advanced flap alone showed significantly more complete root coverage (odds ratio of 3.5), but compared with a connective tissue graft, the result was not significantly different. The use of EMD in furcations (2.6 ± 1.8 mm) gave significantly more improvement in horizontal defect depth compared with resorbable membranes (1.9 ± 1.4 mm) as shown in one study.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of intrabony defects, the use of EMD is superior to control treatments but as effective as resorbable membranes. The additional use of EMD with a coronally advanced flap for recession coverage will give superior results compared with a control but is as effective as a connective tissue graft. The use of EMD in furcations will give more reduction in horizontal furcation defect depth compared with resorbable membranes.

Periodontal regeneration

The ultimate goal of periodontal therapy is the regeneration of the tissues destroyed as a result of periodontal disease. Currently, two clinical techniques, based on the principles of "guided tissue regeneration" (GTR) or utilization of the biologically active agent "enamel matrix derivative" (EMD), can be used for the regeneration of intrabony and Class II mandibular furcation periodontal defects. In cases where additional support and space-making requirements are necessary, both of these procedures can be combined with a bone replacement graft. There is no evidence that the combined use of GTR and EMD results in superior clinical results compared to the use of each material in isolation. Great variability in clinical outcomes has been reported in relation to the use of both EMD and GTR, and these procedures can be generally considered to be unpredictable. Careful case selection and treatment planning, including consideration of patient, tooth, site and surgical factors, is required in order to optimize the outcomes of treatment. There are limited data available for the clinical effectiveness of other biologically active molecules, such as growth factors and platelet concentrates, and although promising results have been reported, further clinical trials are required in order to confirm their effectiveness. Current active areas of research are centred on tissue engineering and gene therapy strategies which may result in more predictable regenerative outcomes in the future.

Regeneration of class II furcation defects: determinants of increased success

One of the most important indications for guided tissue regeneration (GTR) treatment is class II furcation lesion. However, periodontal regeneration of this type of defect, although possible, is not considered totally predictable, especially in terms of complete bone fill. Many factors may account for variability in the response to regenerative therapy in class II furcation. The purpose of this review is to assess the prognostic significance of factors related to the patient (smoking, stress, diabetes mellitus, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and other acute and debilitating diseases, and the presence of multiple deep periodontal pockets), local factors (furcal anatomy, defect morphology, thickness of gingival tissue and tooth mobility), surgical treatment (infection control, bone replacement grafts combined with barriers or GTR alone, type of barrier and surgical technique), and postoperative period (plaque control, membrane exposure, membrane retrieval and a regular supportive periodontal care program) for successful of GTR in class II furcations.