Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26008887›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2015

Enamel matrix derivative and bone grafts for periodontal regeneration of intrabony defects. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

M Matarasso, V Iorio-Siciliano, A Blasi, L Ramaglia, G E Salvi, A Sculean

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05360511 early_phase1completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Erythropoietin Gel as an Adjunct to Xenograft in the Surgical Management of Intrabony Periodontal Defects. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorAin Shams UniversityRan2022 to 2023Enrolled26ConditionsPeriodontal Bone LossArmsparticulate xenograft + erythropoietin gel., particulate xenograft
NCT06041854 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Comparison Between Allograft and Enamel Matrix Derivative and Allograft in Treatment of Intrabony Defects

TypeinterventionalSponsorMansoura UniversityRan2022 to 2024Enrolled20ConditionsIntrabony Periodontal DefectArmsFreeze-dried bone allograft combined with Enamel Matrix derivative, Freeze-dried bone allograft
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

M MatarassoDepartment of Periodontology, Federico II University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
V Iorio-Siciliano
A Blasi
L Ramaglia
G E Salvi
A Sculean
University of Naples Federico II · ITUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the clinical efficacy of regenerative periodontal surgery of intrabony defects using a combination of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and bone graft compared with that of EMD alone. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe Cochrane Oral Health Group specialist trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched for entries up to February 2014. The primary outcome was gain of clinical attachment (CAL). Weighted means and forest plots were calculated for CAL gain, probing depth (PD), and gingival recession (REC).

resultsTwelve studies reporting on 434 patients and 548 intrabony defects were selected for the analysis. Mean CAL gain amounted to 3.76 ± 1.07 mm (median 3.63 95 % CI 3.51-3.75) following treatment with a combination of EMD and bone graft and to 3.32 ± 1.04 mm (median 3.40; 95 % CI 3.28-3.52) following treatment with EMD alone. Mean PD reduction measured 4.22 ± 1.20 mm (median 4.10; 95 % CI 3.96-4.24) at sites treated with EMD and bone graft and yielded 4.12 ± 1.07 mm (median 4.00; 95 % CI 3.88-4.12) at sites treated with EMD alone. Mean REC increase amounted to 0.76 ± 0.42 mm (median 0.63; 95 % CI 0.58-0.68) at sites treated with EMD and bone graft and to 0.91 ± 0.26 mm (median 0.90; 95 % CI 0.87-0.93) at sites treated with EMD alone.

conclusionsWithin their limits, the present results indicate that the combination of EMD and bone grafts may result in additional clinical improvements in terms of CAL gain and PD reduction compared with those obtained with EMD alone. The potential influence of the chosen graft material or of the surgical procedure (i.e., flap design) on the clinical outcomes is unclear. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The present findings support the use of EMD and bone grafts for the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects.

Indexed as

Dental Enamel ProteinsAdultAgedBone RegenerationBone TransplantationChronic PeriodontitisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultDental Enamel Proteinsenamel matrix proteins

Identifiers

PMID26008887
OpenAlexW2158850803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.