Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27044318›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2017

A novel flapless approach versus minimally invasive surgery in periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative proteins: a 24-month randomized controlled clinical trial.

Mario Aimetti, Francesco Ferrarotti, Giulia Maria Mariani, Federica Romano

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03622255 (Evaluation of Enamel Matrix Derivative as an Adjunct to Minimally Invasive Non-surgical Treatment of Intrabony Defects. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03622255 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of Enamel Matrix Derivative as an Adjunct to Minimally Invasive Non-surgical Treatment of Intrabony Defects. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorAristotle University Of ThessalonikiRan2018 to 2021Enrolled40ConditionsPeriodontal DiseasesArmsMINST, MINST with EMD
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

4 authors.

Mario AimettiDepartment of Surgical Sciences, C.I.R. Dental School, Section of Periodontology, University of Turin, Via Nizza 230, 10126, Turin, Italy. mario.aimetti@unito.it.
Francesco FerrarottiDepartment of Surgical Sciences, C.I.R. Dental School, Section of Periodontology, University of Turin, Via Nizza 230, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Giulia Maria MarianiDepartment of Surgical Sciences, C.I.R. Dental School, Section of Periodontology, University of Turin, Via Nizza 230, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Federica RomanoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, C.I.R. Dental School, Section of Periodontology, University of Turin, Via Nizza 230, 10126, Turin, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis investigation was designed to compare the effectiveness of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) proteins in combination with flapless or flap procedure in periodontal regeneration of deep intrabony defects. MATERIALS AND

methodsThirty chronic periodontitis patients who had at least one residual periodontal defect with an intrabony component of ≥3 mm were consecutively enrolled. Defects were randomly assigned to test or control treatments which both consisted of the use of EMD to reach periodontal regeneration. Test sites (n = 15) were treated according to a novel flapless approach, whereas control sites (n = 15) by means of minimally invasive surgery (MIST). Clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded at baseline, 12 and 24 months post-operatively.

resultsBoth therapeutic modalities yielded similar probing depth (PD) reduction and clinical attachment level (CAL) gain at 24 months. In flapless-treated sites, a mean PD reduction of 3.6 ± 1.0 mm and a CAL gain of 3.2 ± 1.1 mm were observed. In the MIST group, they were 3.7 ± 0.6 and 3.6 ± 0.9 mm. The operative chair time was twice as long in the MIST compared to the flapless group, whereas comparable patient-oriented outcomes were observed.

conclusionThe flapless procedure may be successfully applied in the regenerative treatment of deep intrabony defects reaching clinical outcomes comparable with those of minimally invasive surgical approaches and may present important advantages in terms of reduction of operative chair time. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of EMD as an adjunct to non-surgical periodontal treatment may be considered a suitable option to treat defects mainly in the anterior sextants.

Indexed as

Minimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresAdultChronic PeriodontitisDental Enamel ProteinsFemaleGuided Tissue Regeneration, PeriodontalHumansItalyMalePeriodontal IndexSurgical FlapsTreatment OutcomeDental Enamel Proteinsenamel matrix proteinsBiological factorsEnamel matrix proteinsMinimally invasive surgical proceduresPeriodontal debridementPeriodontal pocketRegenerative medicine

Identifiers

PMID27044318

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.