JDE
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Dent Educ. 68(8): 834-844 2004
© 2004 American Dental Education Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Esposito, M.
Right arrow Articles by Worthington, H. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Esposito, M.
Right arrow Articles by Worthington, H. V.

Evidence-Based Dentistry

Enamel Matrix Derivative for Periodontal Tissue Regeneration in Treatment of Intrabony Defects: A Cochrane Systematic Review

Marco Esposito, D.D.S., Ph.D.; Paul Coulthard, B.D.S., M.F.G.D.P. (UK), M.D.S., F.D.S.R.C.S., F.D.S.R.C.S.(OS), Ph.D.; Peter Thomsen, M.D., Ph.D.; Helen V. Worthington, C.Stat., Ph.D.

Key words: dental enamel proteins, periodontal disease, literature review

Submitted for publication 05/13/04; accepted 06/08/04

We reviewed the literature on the efficacy of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in comparison with open flap debridement, guided tissue regeneration (GTR), and bone grafting for the treatment of intrabony defects. We searched four major electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one year of follow-up. Several journals were handsearched with no language restrictions. Outcome measures were: tooth loss, changes in probing attachment levels (PAL), pocket depths (PPD), gingival recessions (REC), marginal bone levels on intraoral radiographs, and postoperative infections. Screening of eligible RCTs, assessment of the methodological quality, and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. No difference in tooth loss was observed. A meta-analysis (eight trials) showed that EMD-treated sites displayed statistically significant PAL improvements (mean difference 1.3 mm) and PPD reduction (1 mm) when compared to flap surgery. When EMD was compared to GTR (six trials), GTR showed a statistically significant reduction of PPD (0.6 mm) and increase of REC (0.5 mm). No difference in postoperative infections was observed. No trials compared EMD with bone grafts alone. EMD is able to significantly improve PAL levels and PPD reduction when compared to flap surgery; however, there is no evidence that more teeth could be saved. There was no evidence of important differences between EMD and GTR.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Dental Education Association.