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

Connective tissue graft vs. emdogain: A new approach to compare the outcomes

Background:

The aim of this clinical trial study was to clinically evaluate the use of enamel matrix protein derivative combined with the coronally positioned flap to treat gingival recession compared to the subepithelial connective tissue graft by a new method to obtain denuded root surface area.

Materials and Methods:

Thirteen patients, each with two or more similar bilateral Miller class I or II gingival recession (40 recessions) were randomly assigned to the test (enamel matrix protein derivative + coronally positioned flap) or control group (subepithelial connective tissue graft). Recession depth, width, probing depth, keratinized gingival, and plaque index were recorded at baseline and at one, three, and six months after treatment. A stent was used to measure the denuded root surface area at each examination session. Results were analyzed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Wilcoxon, Friedman, paired-sample t test.

Results:

The average percentages of root coverage for control and test groups were 63.3% and 55%, respectively. Both groups showed significant keratinized gingival increase (P < 0.05). Recession depth decreased significantly in both groups. Root surface area was improved significantly from baseline with no significant difference between the two study groups (P > 0.05). The results of Friedman test were significant for clinical indices (P < 0.05), except for probing depth in control group (P = 0.166).

Conclusion:

Enamel matrix protein derivative showed the same results as subepithelial connective tissue graft with relatively easy procedure to perform and low patient morbidity.

Surgical Approaches Based on Biological Objectives: GTR versus GBR Techniques

Guided tissue regenerative (GTR) therapies are performed to regenerate the previously lost tooth supporting structure, thus maintaining the aesthetics and masticatory function of the available dentition. Alveolar ridge augmentation procedures (GBR) intend to regain the alveolar bone lost following tooth extraction and/or periodontal disease. Several biomaterials and surgical approaches have been proposed. In this paper we report biomaterials and surgical techniques used for periodontal and bone regenerative procedures. Particular attention will be adopted to highlight the biological basis for the different therapeutic approaches.

Protein and peptide-based therapeutics in periodontal regeneration

Protein and peptide-based therapeutics provide a unique strategy for controlling highly specific and complex biologic actions that cannot be accomplished by simple devices or chemical compounds. This article reviews some of the key characteristics and summarizes the clinical effectiveness of protein and peptide-based therapeutics targeting periodontal regeneration.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was conducted of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews evaluating protein and peptide-based therapeutics for the regeneration of periodontal tissues of at least 6 months duration. Data sources included PubMed and Embase electronic databases, hand-searched journals, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Commercially marketed protein and peptide-based therapeutics for periodontal regeneration provide gains in clinical attachment level and bone formation that are comparable or superior to other regenerative approaches. Results from several clinical trials indicate that protein and peptide-based therapies can accelerate repair and regeneration when compared with other treatments and that improvements in clinical parameters continue beyond 12 months. Protein and peptide-based therapies also exhibit the capacity to increase the predictability of treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical and histologic studies support the effectiveness of protein- and peptide-based therapeutics for periodontal regeneration. Emerging evidence suggests that the delivery devices/scaffolds play a critical role in determining the effectiveness of this class of therapeutics.

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.

Platelet-derived growth factor promotes periodontal regeneration in localized osseous defects: 36-month extension results from a randomized, controlled, double-masked clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor (rhPDGF) is safe and effective for the treatment of periodontal defects in short-term studies up to 6 months in duration. We now provide results from a 36-month extension study of a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the effect and long-term stability of PDGF-BB treatment in patients with localized severe periodontal osseous defects.

METHODS

A total of 135 participants were enrolled from six clinical centers for an extension trial. Eighty-three individuals completed the study at 36 months and were included in the analysis. The study investigated the local application of β-tricalcium phosphate scaffold matrix with or without two different dose levels of PDGF (0.3 or 1.0 mg/mL PDGF-BB) in patients possessing one localized periodontal osseous defect. Composite analysis for clinical and radiographic evidence of treatment success was defined as percentage of cases with clinical attachment level (CAL) ≥2.7 mm and linear bone growth (LBG) ≥1.1 mm.

RESULTS

The participants exceeding this composite outcome benchmark in the 0.3 mg/mL rhPDGF-BB group went from 62.2% at 12 months, 75.9% at 24 months, to 87.0% at 36 months compared with 39.5%, 48.3%, and 53.8%, respectively, in the scaffold control group at these same time points (P <0.05). Although there were no significant increases in CAL and LBG at 36 months among all groups, there were continued increases in CAL gain, LBG, and percentage bone fill over time, suggesting overall stability of the regenerative response.

CONCLUSION

PDGF-BB in a synthetic scaffold matrix promotes long-term stable clinical and radiographic improvements as measured by composite outcomes for CAL gain and LBG for patients possessing localized periodontal defects ( ClinicalTrials.gov no. CT01530126).