The effectiveness of enamel matrix protein (Emdogain(®)) in combination with coronally advanced flap in the treatment of multiple marginal tissue recession: A clinical study

Efficacy of biologics in root coverage and gingival augmentation therapy: An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of three biologics, namely autologous blood-derived products (ABPs), enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) and recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor BB (rhPDGF-BB), in root coverage and gingival augmentation therapy.

METHODS

The protocol of this PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021285917). After study selection, data of interest were extracted. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to assess the effect of different surgical interventions on the main clinical outcomes of interest (i.e., mean root coverage [MRC%], complete root coverage [CRC%], keratinized tissue width [KTW], gingival thickness [GT] change, and recession depth [RD] reduction).

RESULTS

A total of 48 trials reported in 55 articles were selected. All studies reported on the treatment of gingival recession defects for root coverage purposes. Forty-six treatment arms from 24 trials were included in the NMA. These arms consisted of treatment with coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone, EMD + CAF, platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) + CAF, and subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) + CAF. Regarding MRC%, SCTG+CAF was associated with a significant higher estimate (13.41%, 95% CI [8.06-18.75], P <  0.01), while EMD+CAF (6.68%, 95% CI [-0.03 to 13.4], P = 0.061) and PRF+CAF (1.03%, 95% CI [-5.65 to 7.72], P = 0.71) failed to show statistically significant differences compared with CAF alone (control group) or with each other. Similarly, only SCTG+CAF led to a significantly higher CRC% (14.41%, 95% CI [4.21 to 24.61], P < 0.01), while treatment arms EMD + CAF (13.48%, 95% CI [-3.34 to 30.32], P = 0.11) and PRF+CAF (-0.91%, 95% CI [-15.38, 13.57], p = 0.81) did not show significant differences compared with CAF alone or with each other. Differences in the CI of PRF+CAF (symmetrical around a zero adjunctive effect) and EMD+CAF (non-symmetrical) suggest that EMD could have some additional value compared with PRF. Treatment with SCTG+CAF led to a statistically significant higher RD reduction (-0.39 mm, 95% CI [-0.55 to 0.22], P < 0.01), however EMD+CAF (-0.13 mm, 95% CI [-0.29 to 0.01], P = 0.08) and PRF+CAF (-0.06 mm, 95% CI [-0.23 to 0.09], P = 0.39) failed to show significant differences compared with CAF or with each other. While SCTG+CAF was associated with a statistically significant higher gain of KTW (0.71 mm, 95% CI [0.48 to 0.93], P < 0.01), EMD+CAF (0.24 mm, 95% CI [-0.02 to 0.51], P = 0.08) and PRF+CAF (0.08 mm, 95% CI [-0.23 to 0.41], P = 0.58) did not result into significant changes compared with CAF alone or with each other. Regarding the use of rhPDGF-BB+CAF, although available studies have reported equivalent results compared with SCTG+CAF, evidence is very limited.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ABPs, EMD, or rhPDGF-BB in conjunction with a CAF for root coverage purposes is safe and generally promotes significant improvements respective to baseline clinical parameters. However, the adjunctive use of ABPs and EMD does not provide substantial additional improvements in terms of clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures to those achieved using CAF alone, when baseline KTW is >2 mm. Both PRF+CAF and EMD+CAF rendered inferior MRC%, CRC%, RD reduction, and KTW gain compared with SCTG+CAF, which should still be considered the gold-standard in root coverage therapy. Although some studies have reported equivalent results for rhPDGF-BB+CAF compared with the gold-standard intervention, limited evidence precludes formal comparisons with CAF or SCTG+CAF that could be extrapolated to guide clinical practice.

Coronally advanced flap with and without hyaluronic acid (HYALOSS) for the treatment of gingival recession – a randomized clinical trial

Objectives: To compare and evaluate the surgical outcome of gingival recession treatment using CAF alone or in conjunction with hyaluronic acid (HA) on Miller's Class I and class II gingival recession defects. Materials and methods: After randomisation, the control group (15 patients) received CAF alone and the test group (15 patients) received HA as an adjunct to CAF technique for an isolated gingival recession accompanied by an adequate width of keratinized gingiva on maxillary canines and premolars. All patients were evaluated at 7, 15, 30, 60 and 90 days interval post-operatively. Data obtained was subjected to statistical analysis and p value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: At 90 days interval statistically highly significant root coverage was obtained with mean gain of 66.1% in control group and 86.6% in test group. Statistically significant reduction in depth of gingival recession and gain in clinical attachment level was found for control and the test groups, and intergroup comparison showed statistically significant differences for root coverage and clinical attachment level between the groups (p = 0.000), however no significant differences were found for width of attached gingiva, keratinized gingiva and gingival thickness between the groups at 90 days (p > 005). Conclusion: HA has proven to be beneficial in the field of regenerative therapy. Our analysis suggested that HA can be used as a promising adjunct with CAF for root coverage, however further studies are required to imply the results on larger population.

Gingival recession treatment with enamel matrix derivative associated with coronally advanced flap and subepithelial connective tissue graft: a split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial with molecular evaluation

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on periodontal healing after root coverage (RC) surgery, involving CAF in combination with SCTG, and to assess the molecular profile, verifying the inflammation level in early stage (1 and 2 weeks).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-two recessions (RT1) were submitted to periodontal surgery with (test) or without (control) EMD. The clinical parameters analyzed on the day of surgery and 6 months after the surgical procedure were as follows: recession height and width, keratinized tissue height, percentual root coverage, and the gingival thickness of keratinized tissue. Moreover, the main inflammatory biomarkers and growth factors (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, FGF, MIP-1α and β, PDGF, TNF-α, and VEGF) were evaluated at baseline, 7, and 14 days after procedures.

RESULTS

The average root coverage was significantly higher in the test group as compared to the control group (86% vs. 66%, p = 0.008). The test side had significantly lesser final RH compared to the control side (p = 0.01). Also, there was a significant reduction of RW in both groups, with more significant results in the test group. KTH and GT were not significantly different at any time and group. After 14 days, the immunological analysis showed an increase of VEGF (p = 0.03) on the test group compared to the control side.

CONCLUSION

The use of EMD in RC surgeries resulted in a significantly higher RC, as well as a significant increase in VEGF expression, suggesting that EMD may contribute to the angiogenic and healing process.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

EMD provided better results in root coverage treatment when associated with CAF and SCTG, beyond a greater releasing of angiogenic growth factor (VEGF), which enhanced the result.

Does enamel matrix derivative application provide additional clinical benefits in the treatment of maxillary Miller class I and II gingival recession? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to evaluate the effects of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in association with coronally advanced flap (CAF) or CAF + connective tissue graft (CTG) when compared with CAF alone or CAF + CTG for the treatment of gingival recessions (GR) in maxillary teeth.

METHODS

Five databases and gray literature were searched up to April 2020, to find randomized clinical trials comparing the clinical effects of CAF + EMD versus CAF alone (first group) or CAF + CTG + EMD versus CAF + CTG (second group) in the treatment of Miller class I and II or Cairo type I gingival recessions (GR). Random effects model of mean differences was used to determine the GR reduction, gain in keratinized tissue width (KTW), and gain in clinical attachment level (CAL). The trial sequential analysis (TSA) was implemented to determine the optimal information size (OIS) and imprecision using the GRADE approach. Bayes factors were calculated as complementary statistical evidence of p value.

RESULTS

From 1349 titles identified, 9 trials representing 336 GR were included. The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant difference for GR reduction and CAL gain in favor CAF + EMD (p ≤ 0.05). The additional effect of EMD showed a statistically significant difference in GR reduction in favor CAF + CTG + EMD (p ≤ 0.05). The differences in KTW gain proved to be not statistically significant in both comparison groups. The OIS were not met among meta-analyses. Evidence certainty according the GRADE approach proved to be moderate for GR reduction and gain in CAL, but very low for gain in KTW.

CONCLUSION

The adjunctive application of EMD in the treatment of GR in maxillary teeth either with CAF or CTG provided moderate certainty evidence in favor of their use for reduction in GR and gain in CAL at 6 and 12 months. However, their effect on the increase in keratinized tissue band height showed very low evidence certainty for its use.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

To know if EMD could improve the results for root coverage.

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession-type defects

BACKGROUND

Gingival recession is defined as the oral exposure of the root surface due to a displacement of the gingival margin apical to the cemento-enamel junction and it is regularly linked to the deterioration of dental aesthetics. Successful treatment of recession-type defects is based on the use of predictable root coverage periodontal plastic surgery (RCPPS) procedures. This review is an update of the original version that was published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of different root coverage procedures in the treatment of single and multiple recession-type defects.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 January 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 January 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials (15 January 2018). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only of at least 6 months' duration evaluating recession areas (Miller's Class I or II ≥ 3 mm) and treated by means of RCPPS procedures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. We expressed results as random-effects models using mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE methods to assess the quality of the body of evidence of our main comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 48 RCTs in the review. Of these, we assessed one as at low risk of bias, 12 as at high risk of bias and 35 as at unclear risk of bias. The results indicated a greater reduction in gingival recession for subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) + coronally advanced flap (CAF) compared to guided tissue regeneration with resorbable membranes (GTR rm) + CAF (MD -0.37 mm; 95% CI -0.60 to -0.13, P = 0.002; 3 studies; 98 participants; low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference in gingival recession reduction between acellular dermal matrix grafts (ADMG) + CAF and SCTG + CAF or between enamel matrix protein (EMP) + CAF and SCTG + CAF. Regarding clinical attachment level changes, GTR rm + CAF promoted additional gains compared to SCTG + CAF (MD 0.35; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63, P = 0.02; 3 studies; 98 participants; low-quality evidence) but there was insufficient evidence of a difference between ADMG + CAF and SCTG + CAF or between EMP + CAF and SCTG + CAF. Greater gains in the keratinized tissue were found for SCTG + CAF when compared to EMP + CAF (MD -1.06 mm; 95% CI -1.36 to -0.76, P < 0.00001; 2 studies; 62 participants; low-quality evidence), and SCTG + CAF when compared to GTR rm + CAF (MD -1.77 mm; 95% CI -2.66 to -0.89, P < 0.0001; 3 studies; 98 participants; very low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference in keratinized tissue gain between ADMG + CAF and SCTG + CAF. Few data exist on aesthetic condition change related to patients' opinion and patients' preference for a specific procedure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Subepithelial connective tissue grafts, coronally advanced flap alone or associated with other biomaterial and guided tissue regeneration may be used as root coverage procedures for treating localised or multiple recession-type defects. The available evidence base indicates that in cases where both root coverage and gain in the width of keratinized tissue are expected, the use of subepithelial connective tissue grafts shows a slight improvement in outcome. There is also some weak evidence suggesting that acellular dermal matrix grafts appear as the soft tissue substitute that may provide the most similar outcomes to those achieved by subepithelial connective tissue grafts. RCTs are necessary to identify possible factors associated with the prognosis of each RCPPS procedure. The potential impact of bias on these outcomes is unclear.

Does Adjunctive Use of Growth Factors Improve Clinical Outcomes of Soft Tissue Grafting at Miller Class III Recession Defects? A Review of Current Evidence

Focused Clinical Question In patients with gingival recession that is classified as Miller Class III, does adjunctive use of local growth factors with gingival grafting procedures improve clinical outcomes? Clinical Scenario A 31-year-old female presents with a chief complaint of gingival recession (GR) at teeth #4 to #13 (Fig. 1). Interproximal bone loss coronal to the level of the buccal GR is present. She is concerned about esthetics and would like to maximize her chance for complete root coverage. Her medical history is non-contributory, and she has no contraindications to routine dental care. Because of the number of teeth involved and the difficulty in harvesting autogenous tissues, she is treated with acellular dermal matrix^§ and enamel matrix derivative^‖ with a coronally advanced flap at teeth #4 to #13 (Figs. 2 and 3). Final results reveal significant root coverage on all teeth and complete root coverage on teeth #7 to #10. This results in an esthetically acceptable result (Fig. 4).

Periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures: a systematic review from the AAP Regeneration Workshop

BACKGROUND

This paper aims to create a "bridge" between research and practice by developing a practical, extensive, and clinically relevant study that translates evidence-based findings on soft tissue root coverage (RC) of recession-type defects to daily clinical practice.

METHODS

This review is prepared in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement based on the proposed focused questions. A literature search with no restrictions regarding status or the language of publication was performed for MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to and including June 2013. Systematic reviews (SRs), randomized clinical trials, controlled clinical trials, case series, and case reports evaluating recession areas that were treated by means of RC procedures were considered eligible for inclusion through the three parts of the study (part I, an overview of the base of SRs; part II, an alternative random-effects meta-analyses on mean percentage of RC and sites exhibiting complete RC; and part III, an SR of non-randomized trials exploring other conditions not extensively evaluated by previous SRs). Data on Class I, II, III, and IV recessions, type of histologic attachment achieved with treatment, recipient- and donor-site anatomic characteristics, smoking-related outcomes, root surface conditions, tooth type and location, long-term effectiveness outcomes, unusual conditions that may be reported during conventional daily practice, and patient-centered outcomes were assessed as well.

RESULTS

Of the 2,456 potentially eligible trials, 234 were included. Data on Class I, II, III, and IV gingival recessions, histologic attachment achieved after treatment, recipient- and donor-site anatomic characteristics, smoking-related outcomes, root surface conditions/biomodification, tooth type and location, long-term effectiveness outcomes and unusual conditions that may be reported during conventional daily practice, and patient-centered outcomes (i.e., esthetic, visual analog scale, complications, hypersensitivity, patients perceptions) were assessed. Subepithelial connective tissue (CT)-based procedures and coronally advanced flap plus acellular dermal matrix grafts, enamel matrix derivative, or collagen matrix led to the best improvements of recession depth, clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, and keratinized tissue (KT). Some conditions, such as smoking and use of magnification, may affect RC outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

All RC procedures can provide significant reduction in recession depth and CAL gain for Miller Class I and II recession-type defects. Subepithelial CT graft-based procedures provided the best outcomes for clinical practice because of their superior percentages of mean and complete RC, as well as significant increase of KT.

Comparação in vitro da eficácia de diferentes formulações do gel de EDTA 24% no condicionamento da superfície radicular

INTRODUÇÃO: A biomodificação radicular visa a alterar a superfície radicular para auxiliar no reparo das estruturas periodontais de suporte destruídas pela doença periodontal. OBJETIVO: Avaliar por meio de microscopia eletrônica de varredura a eficácia do condicionamento químico com gel de EDTA 24% na remoção de smear layer e na exposição de fibras colágenas, verificando-se diferentes marcas comerciais, modos e tempos de aplicação. MATERIAL E MÉTODO: Um total de 225 amostras foram obtidas e distribuídas aleatoriamente em cinco grupos: soro fisiológico (controle); EDTA 24% (Farmácia Santa Paula); EDTA-T 24% (Farmácia Santa Paula); EDTA 24% (PrefGel; Straumann); EDTA 24% (Biodinâmica). As amostras de cada grupo foram redistribuídas aleatoriamente em subgrupos (n = 5) e condicionadas com os diferentes géis de EDTA nos tempos de 1, 2 e 3 minutos, e nos modos de aplicação tópica, fricção vigorosa e fricção suave. Os testes de Kruskal-Wallis e Dunn (p < 0,05) foram utilizados e aplicados separadamente para os fatores: marca comercial, tempo e modo de aplicação. RESULTADO: A análise estatística revelou que o gel de EDTA 24% da Biodinâmica promoveu a menor remoção de smear layer. Não foram detectadas diferenças estatísticas para os tempos de aplicação. O modo de aplicação fricção suave resultou em menor quantidade de smear layer residual. CONCLUSÃO: Todos os géis de EDTA 24% utilizados foram eficazes na remoção de smear layer e na exposição de fibras colágenas, independentemente do tempo de aplicação; no entanto, o modo de fricção suave foi mais efetivo. Na análise comparativa entre os produtos, o EDTA da Biodinâmica foi menos efetivo, já que promoveu menor remoção de smear layer e exposição de fibras colágenas.