Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects

GTR Treatment in Furcation Grade II Periodontal Defects with the Recently Reintroduced Guidor PLA Matrix Barrier: A Case Series with Chronological Step-by-Step Illustrations

Molars with a furcation involvement (FI) exceeding grade 1 according to Hamp's classification are at approximately doubled risk of tooth loss. Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) is a regenerative approach in the treatment of periodontal defects and is aimed at achieving new clinical attachment formation. The aim of this case series was to assess the efficacy of a newly reintroduced polylactic acid (PLA) matrix barrier and to evaluate the feasibility of the surgical approach. 11 patients with an average age of 58.7 years were treated with GTR using a PLA matrix barrier. Patients were instructed not to brush and chew on the treated side for 4 weeks. A gentle clinical probing was performed after 6 months for the first time after surgery. The patients were included into individual maintenance program at three months' interval. The clinical improvement was expressed by reduced horizontal penetration of the probe accompanied by vast resolution of the vertical defect component. The change from grade II to grade I or complete resolution of the FI could be seen in 8 from 11 sites included. The newly reintroduced PLA matrix barrier showed promising results after a 12-month observation period with clinical attachment gain.

WITHDRAWN: Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects

BACKGROUND

Conventional treatment of destructive periodontal (gum) disease arrests the disease but does not usually regain the bone support or connective tissue lost in the disease process. Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) is a surgical procedure that specifically aims to regenerate the periodontal tissues when the disease is advanced and could overcome some of the limitations of conventional therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of GTR in the treatment of periodontal infra-bony defects measured against conventional surgery (open flap debridement (OFD)) and factors affecting outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted an electronic search of the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to April 2004. Handsearching included Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontal Research and bibliographies of all relevant papers and review articles up to April 2004. In addition, we contacted experts/groups/companies involved in surgical research to find other trials or unpublished material or to clarify ambiguous or missing data and posted requests for data on two periodontal electronic discussion groups.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 months duration comparing guided tissue regeneration (with or without graft materials) with open flap debridement for the treatment of periodontal infra-bony defects. Furcation involvements and studies specifically treating aggressive periodontitis were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of possible studies and data extraction was conducted independently. The methodological quality of studies was assessed in duplicate using individual components and agreement determined by Kappa scores. Methodological quality was used in sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the conclusions. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and the results expressed as mean differences (MD and 95% CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR and 95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes calculated using random-effects models. Any heterogeneity was investigated. The primary outcome measure was change in clinical attachment.

MAIN RESULTS

The search produced 626 titles, of these 596 were clearly not relevant to the review. The full text of 32 studies of possible relevance was obtained and 15 studies were excluded. Therefore 17 RCTs were included in this review, 16 studies testing GTR alone and two testing GTR + bone substitutes (one study had both test treatment arms).No tooth loss was reported in any study although these data are incomplete where patient follow up was not complete. For attachment level change, the mean difference between GTR and OFD was 1.22 mm (95% CI Random Effects: 0.80 to 1.64, Chi2 for heterogeneity 69.1 (df = 15), P < 0.001, I2 = 78%) and for GTR + bone substitutes was 1.25 mm (95% CI 0.89 to 1.61, Chi2 for heterogeneity 0.01 (df = 1), P = 0.91). GTR showed a significant benefit when comparing the numbers of sites failing to gain 2 mm attachment with risk ratio 0.54 (95% CI Random Effects: 0.31 to 0.96, Chi2 for heterogeneity 8.9 (df = 5), P = 0.11). The number needed to treat (NNT) for GTR to achieve one extra site gaining 2 mm or more attachment over open flap debridement was therefore 8 (95% CI 5 to 33), based on an incidence of 28% of sites in the control group failing to gain 2 mm or more of attachment. For baseline incidences in the range of the control groups of 3% and 55% the NNTs are 71 and 4.Probing depth reduction was greater for GTR than OFD: 1.21 mm (95% CI 0.53 to 1.88, Chi2 for heterogeneity 62.9 (df = 10), P < 0.001, I2 = 84%) or GTR + bone substitutes, weighted mean difference 1.24 mm (95% CI 0.89 to 1.59, Chi2 for heterogeneity 0.03 (df = 1), P = 0.85).For gingival recession, a statistically significant difference between GTR and open flap debridement controls was evident (mean difference 0.26 mm (95% CI Random Effects: 0.08, 0.43, Chi2 for heterogeneity 2.7 (df = 8), P = 0.95), with a greater change in recession from baseline for the control group.Regarding hard tissue probing at surgical re-entry, a statistically significant greater gain was found for GTR compared with open flap debridement. This amounted to a weighted mean difference of 1.39 mm (95% CI 1.08 to 1.71, Chi2 for heterogeneity 0.85 (df = 2), P = 0.65). For GTR + bone substitutes the difference was greater, with mean difference 3.37 mm (95% CI 3.14 to 3.61).Adverse effects were generally minor although with an increased treatment time for GTR. Exposure of the barrier membrane was frequently reported with a lack of evidence of an effect on healing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

GTR has a greater effect on probing measures of periodontal treatment than open flap debridement, including improved attachment gain, reduced pocket depth, less increase in gingival recession and more gain in hard tissue probing at re-entry surgery. However there is marked variability between studies and the clinical relevance of these changes is unknown. As a result, it is difficult to draw general conclusions about the clinical benefit of GTR. Whilst there is evidence that GTR can demonstrate a significant improvement over conventional open flap surgery, the factors affecting outcomes are unclear from the literature and these might include study conduct issues such as bias. Therefore, patients and health professionals need to consider the predictability of the technique compared with other methods of treatment before making final decisions on use. Since trial reports were often incomplete, we recommend that future trials should follow the CONSORT statement both in their conduct and reporting.There is therefore little value in future research repeating simple, small efficacy studies. The priority should be to identify factors associated with improved outcomes as well as investigating outcomes relevant to patients. Types of research might include large observational studies to generate hypotheses for testing in clinical trials, qualitative studies on patient-centred outcomes and trials exploring innovative analytic methods such as multilevel modelling. Open flap surgery should remain the control comparison in these studies.

Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator to Treat Deep Infrabony Defects: A New Flapless Minimally Invasive Approach

The primary outcome of the present study was to assess the percentage of pocket closure, and the secondary aim was to evaluate the clinical performance in terms of clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction, and gingival recession (REC) after the use of cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) in deep infrabony defects. Fourteen deep infrabony defects in 11 patients who were previously treated with active periodontal therapy followed by one year of supportive periodontal therapy (at least three sessions) were additionally treated by the aid of CUSA. Eighty-six percent of the initial defects (12 out of 14) resulted in a PD < 5 mm, showing complete resolution six months after CUSA treatment, without any adverse event and with negligible pain (VAS from 0 to 3). CUSA showed potential as a method to promote pocket healing, reduce PPD, and increase clinical attachment (P < 0.001) in deep infrabony defects. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03567161.

Association between susceptible genotypes to periodontitis and clinical outcomes of periodontal regenerative therapy: A systematic review

Background

The aim of this review is to systematically investigate the effect of a susceptible genotype to periodontitis with the clinical outcomes of periodontal regeneration.

Material and Methods

Based on a focused question, an electronic search identified 155 unique citations. Three journals (Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Clinical Periodontology and Journal of Periodontal Research), references of relevant studies and review articles were hand-searched. Two independent reviewers implementing eligibility inclusion criteria selected the studies.

Results

Of the 155, four studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All studies were published between 2000 and 2004 and the samples’ size was 40 to 86 patients. Polymorphisms of Interleukin-1 (IL-1) gene were included in all. Three out of four studies failed to identify an association between susceptible genotypes to periodontitis and clinical outcomes of periodontal regeneration, while one found an association. The heterogeneity and small number of studies included prevented the conduct of a meta-analysis. No studies were identified evaluating the effect of other genotypes and as a result only IL-1 genotype studies were included.

Conclusions

Within the limits of the present review, no direct conclusion for the effect of a susceptible IL-1 genotype status to the clinical outcome after periodontal regeneration could be drawn. The need of more qualitative studies to explore a possible association emerges.

Key words:Periodontitis, genotype, periodontal therapy, regeneration, susceptibility, systematic review.

Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain(R)) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is a chronic infective disease of the gums caused by bacteria present in dental plaque. This condition induces the breakdown of the tooth supporting apparatus until teeth are lost. Surgery may be indicated to arrest disease progression and regenerate lost tissues. Several surgical techniques have been developed to regenerate periodontal tissues including guided tissue regeneration (GTR), bone grafting (BG) and the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD). EMD is an extract of enamel matrix and contains amelogenins of various molecular weights. Amelogenins are involved in the formation of enamel and periodontal attachment formation during tooth development.

OBJECTIVES

To test whether EMD is effective, and to compare EMD versus GTR, and various BG procedures for the treatment of intrabony defects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Several journals were handsearched. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified, personal contacts and the manufacturer were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: February 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs on patients affected by periodontitis having intrabony defects of at least 3 mm treated with EMD compared with open flap debridement, GTR and various BG procedures with at least 1 year follow up. The outcome measures considered were: tooth loss, changes in probing attachment levels (PAL), pocket depths (PPD), gingival recessions (REC), bone levels from the bottom of the defects on intraoral radiographs, aesthetics and adverse events. The following time-points were to be evaluated: 1, 5 and 10 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). It was decided not to investigate heterogeneity, but a sensitivity analysis for the risk of bias of the trials was performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials were included out of 35 potentially eligible trials. No included trial presented data after 5 years of follow up, therefore all data refer to the 1-year time point. A meta-analysis including nine trials showed that EMD treated sites displayed statistically significant PAL improvements (mean difference 1.1 mm, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.55) and PPD reduction (0.9 mm, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.31) when compared to placebo or control treated sites, though a high degree of heterogeneity was found. Significantly more sites had < 2 mm PAL gain in the control group, with RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.82). Approximately nine patients needed to be treated (NNT) to have one patient gaining 2 mm or more PAL over the control group, based on a prevalence in the control group of 25%. No differences in tooth loss or aesthetic appearance as judged by the patients were observed. When evaluating only trials at a low risk of bias in a sensitivity analysis (four trials), the effect size for PAL was 0.62 mm (95% CI 0.28 to 0.96), which was less than 1.1 mm for the overall result. Comparing EMD with GTR (five trials), GTR showed statistically significant more postoperative complications (three trials, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.85) and more REC (0.4 mm 95% CI 0.15 to 0.66). The only trial comparing EMD with a bioactive ceramic filler found statistically significant more REC (-1.60 mm, 95% CI -2.74 to -0.46) at the EMG treated sites.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

One year after its application, EMD significantly improved PAL levels (1.1 mm) and PPD reduction (0.9 mm) when compared to a placebo or control, however, the high degree of heterogeneity observed among trials suggests that results have to be interpreted with great caution. In addition, a sensitivity analysis indicated that the overall treatment effect might be overestimated. The actual clinical advantages of using EMD are unknown. With the exception of significantly more postoperative complications in the GTR group, there was no evidence of clinically important differences between GTR and EMD. Bone substitutes may be associated with less REC than EMD.

Evidence-based periodontal therapy: An overview

Dentists need to make clinical decisions based on limited scientific evidence. In clinical practice, a clinician must weigh a myriad of evidences every day. The goal of evidence-based dentistry is to help practitioners provide their patients with optimal care. This is achieved by integrating sound research evidence with personal clinical expertise and patient values to determine the best course of treatment. Periodontology has a rich background of research and scholarship. Therefore, efficient use of this wealth of research data needs to be a part of periodontal practice. Evidence-based periodontology aims to facilitate such an approach and it offers a bridge from science to clinical practice. The clinician must integrate the evidence with patient preference, scientific knowledge, and personal experience. Most important, it allows us to care for our patients. Therefore, evidence-based periodontology is a tool to support decision-making and integrating the best evidence available with clinical practice.

Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects

BACKGROUND

Conventional treatment of destructive periodontal (gum) disease arrests the disease but does not usually regain the bone support or connective tissue lost in the disease process. Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) is a surgical procedure that specifically aims to regenerate the periodontal tissues when the disease is advanced and could overcome some of the limitations of conventional therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of GTR in the treatment of periodontal infra-bony defects measured against conventional surgery (open flap debridement (OFD)) and factors affecting outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We conducted an electronic search of the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to April 2004. Handsearching included Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontal Research and bibliographies of all relevant papers and review articles up to April 2004. In addition, we contacted experts/groups/companies involved in surgical research to find other trials or unpublished material or to clarify ambiguous or missing data and posted requests for data on two periodontal electronic discussion groups.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 months duration comparing guided tissue regeneration (with or without graft materials) with open flap debridement for the treatment of periodontal infra-bony defects. Furcation involvements and studies specifically treating aggressive periodontitis were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of possible studies and data extraction was conducted independently. The methodological quality of studies was assessed in duplicate using individual components and agreement determined by Kappa scores. Methodological quality was used in sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the conclusions. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and the results expressed as mean differences (MD and 95% CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR and 95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes calculated using random-effects models. Any heterogeneity was investigated. The primary outcome measure was change in clinical attachment.

MAIN RESULTS

The search produced 626 titles, of these 596 were clearly not relevant to the review. The full text of 32 studies of possible relevance was obtained and 15 studies were excluded. Therefore 17 RCTs were included in this review, 16 studies testing GTR alone and two testing GTR+bone substitutes (one study had both test treatment arms).No tooth loss was reported in any study although these data are incomplete where patient follow up was not complete. For attachment level change, the mean difference between GTR and OFD was 1.22 mm (95% CI Random Effects: 0.80 to 1.64, chi squared for heterogeneity 69.1 (df = 15), P < 0.001, I(2) = 78%) and for GTR + bone substitutes was 1.25 mm (95% CI 0.89 to 1.61, chi squared for heterogeneity 0.01 (df = 1), P = 0.91). GTR showed a significant benefit when comparing the numbers of sites failing to gain 2 mm attachment with risk ratio 0.54 (95% CI Random Effects: 0.31 to 0.96, chi squared for heterogeneity 8.9 (df = 5), P = 0.11). The number needed to treat (NNT) for GTR to achieve one extra site gaining 2 mm or more attachment over open flap debridement was therefore 8 (95% CI 5 to 33), based on an incidence of 28% of sites in the control group failing to gain 2 mm or more of attachment. For baseline incidences in the range of the control groups of 3% and 55% the NNTs are 71 and 4. Probing depth reduction was greater for GTR than OFD: 1.21 mm (95% CI 0.53 to 1.88, chi squared for heterogeneity 62.9 (df = 10), P < 0.001, I(2) = 84%) or GTR + bone substitutes, weighted mean difference 1.24 mm (95% CI 0.89 to 1.59, chi squared for heterogeneity 0.03 (df = 1), P = 0.85). For gingival recession, a statistically significant difference between GTR and open flap debridement controls was evident (mean difference 0.26 mm (95% CI Random Effects: 0.08, 0.43, chi squared for heterogeneity 2.7 (df = 8), P = 0.95), with a greater change in recession from baseline for the control group. Regarding hard tissue probing at surgical re-entry, a statistically significant greater gain was found for GTR compared with open flap debridement. This amounted to a weighted mean difference of 1.39 mm (95% CI 1.08 to 1.71, chi squared for heterogeneity 0.85 (df = 2), P = 0.65). For GTR + bone substitutes the difference was greater, with mean difference 3.37 mm (95% CI 3.14 to 3.61). Adverse effects were generally minor although with an increased treatment time for GTR. Exposure of the barrier membrane was frequently reported with a lack of evidence of an effect on healing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

GTR has a greater effect on probing measures of periodontal treatment than open flap debridement, including improved attachment gain, reduced pocket depth, less increase in gingival recession and more gain in hard tissue probing at re-entry surgery. However there is marked variability between studies and the clinical relevance of these changes is unknown. As a result, it is difficult to draw general conclusions about the clinical benefit of GTR. Whilst there is evidence that GTR can demonstrate a significant improvement over conventional open flap surgery, the factors affecting outcomes are unclear from the literature and these might include study conduct issues such as bias. Therefore, patients and health professionals need to consider the predictability of the technique compared with other methods of treatment before making final decisions on use. Since trial reports were often incomplete, we recommend that future trials should follow the CONSORT statement both in their conduct and reporting. There is therefore little value in future research repeating simple, small efficacy studies. The priority should be to identify factors associated with improved outcomes as well as investigating outcomes relevant to patients. Types of research might include large observational studies to generate hypotheses for testing in clinical trials, qualitative studies on patient-centred outcomes and trials exploring innovative analytic methods such as multilevel modelling. Open flap surgery should remain the control comparison in these studies.

Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is a chronic infective disease of the gums caused by bacteria present in dental plaque. This condition induces the breakdown of the tooth supporting apparatus until teeth are lost. Surgery may be indicated to arrest disease progression and regenerate lost tissues. Several surgical techniques have been developed to regenerate periodontal tissues including guided tissue regeneration (GTR), bone grafting (BG) and the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD). EMD is an extract of enamel matrix and contains amelogenins of various molecular weights. Amelogenins are involved in the formation of enamel and periodontal attachment formation during tooth development.

OBJECTIVES

To test whether EMD is effective, and to compare EMD versus GTR, and various BG procedures for the treatment of intrabony defects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane OHG Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Several journals were handsearched. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of RCTs identified, personal contacts and the manufacturer were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: May 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs on patients affected by periodontitis having intrabony defects of at least 3 mm treated with EMD compared with open flap debridement, GTR and various BG procedures with at least 1 year follow up. The outcome measures considered were: tooth loss, changes in probing attachment levels (PAL), pocket depths (PPD), gingival recessions (REC), bone levels from the bottom of the defects on intraoral radiographs, aesthetics and adverse events. The following time-points were to be evaluated: 1, 5 and 10 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). It was decided not to investigate heterogeneity, but a sensitivity analysis for the risk of bias of the trials was performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials were included out of 29 potentially eligible trials. No included trial presented data after 5 years of follow up, therefore all data refer to the 1-year time point. A meta-analysis including eight trials showed that EMD treated sites displayed statistically significant PAL improvements (mean difference 1.2 mm, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.7) and PPD reduction (0.8 mm, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.0) when compared to placebo or control treated sites, though a high degree of heterogeneity was found. Significantly more sites had < 2 mm PAL gain in the control group, with RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.80). Approximately six patients needed to be treated (NNT) to have one patient gaining 2 mm or more PAL over the control group, based on a prevalence in the control group of 35%. No differences in tooth loss or aesthetic appearance as judged by the patients were observed. When evaluating the only two trials at a low risk of bias in a sensitivity analysis, the effect size for PAL was 0.6 mm, which was less than 1.2 mm for the overall result. Comparing EMD with GTR (five trials), GTR showed a statistically significant increase of REC (0.4 mm) and significantly more postoperative complications. No trials were found comparing EMD with BG.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

One year after its application, EMD significantly improved PAL levels (1.2 mm) and PPD reduction (0.8 mm) when compared to a placebo or control, however, the high degree of heterogeneity observed among trials suggests that results have to be interpreted with great caution. In addition a sensitivity analyses indicated that the overall treatment effect might be overestimated. The actual clinical advantages of using EMD are unknown. With the exception of significantly more postoperative complications in the GTR group, there was no evidence of clinically important differences between GTR and EMD.