ArticleBMC oral health2024
Long-term results of regenerative treatment of intrabony defects: a cohort study with 5-year follow-up.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amelogenin Peptide Promotes Human Dental Pulp Cell Proliferation and Odontogenic Differentiation via ERK1/2 Pathway.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Treatment of intra-bony defect and periodontal phenotype modification therapy (PhMT): A one-year follow-up case report.Medicine · 2025Article
- In-vitro evaluation of multicomponent scaffold with kappa carrageenan, tendon extracellular matrix and calcium-magnesium silicate for periodontal bone regeneration.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes and survival of teeth in periodontal regenerative treatment of intrabony defects using combined enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) and deproteinized porcine bone mineral (DPBM) compared to EMD alone.
methodsA total of 333 intrabony defects in 176 patients (mean age: 54.7 ± 8.9 years) were followed-up for 58.6 ± 11.2 (range, 25-78) months after periodontal regenerative treatment. Changes in clinical (pocket probing depth and clinical attachment level) and radiographic (defect depth and defect width) parameters were analyzed using serial periapical radiographs. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression analyses for tooth loss were also performed.
resultsCompared to periodontal surgery with EMD alone with a mean follow-up of 5 years, combined EMD and DPBM showed significantly better gain in clinical attachment level (EMD and DPBM: 2.8 ± 2.3 mm vs. EMD alone: 2.2 ± 2.2 mm) and reduction in probing pocket depth (EMD and DPBM: 2.8 ± 1.8 mm vs. EMD alone: 2.3 ± 1.8 mm), defect depth (EMD and DPBM: 2.5 ± 2.4 mm vs. EMD alone: 2.0 ± 2.4 mm) and defect width (EMD and DPBM: 0.6 ± 1.0 mm vs. EMD alone: 0.2 ± 1.3 mm). The overall survival rates of the teeth were 91.48% and 95.20% in the patient- and tooth-based analyses, respectively, showing no statistically significant difference.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of the current study, combined EMD and DPBM offered additional clinical and radiographic benefits over a mean of 5 years compared to EMD alone. However, tooth loss did not differ significantly between the two groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Compared to EMD alone, combined EMD and DPBM for intrabony defects has additional clinical advantages; however, patient- and tooth-related risk factors must be considered when performing periodontal regenerative surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.