ReviewContemporary clinical dentistry
Efficacy of Enamel Matrix Derivative in Periodontal Regeneration Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Contemporary clinical dentistry. 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.
- Contemporary biomimetic and bioactive materials in paediatric dentistry: a narrative review.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Review
- Amelogenin Peptide Promotes Human Dental Pulp Cell Proliferation and Odontogenic Differentiation via ERK1/2 Pathway.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Amelogenin enhances the reparative competence of trauma-affected periodontal ligament stem cells: implications for tooth autotransplantation.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on periodontal regeneration defects. Materials and Methods: Four databases were searched until October 2021. Experimental animal studies evaluating the efficacy of EMD were used. The primary outcomes were bone formation (BF) and cementum formation (CF). The secondary outcomes were junctional epithelium (JE), gingival recession (GR), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Measures of effect were mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Random-effects model were used for all meta-analyses. The Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Results: Seven experimental animal studies ( Conclusion: EMD had no effect on BF values while it did not reduce CF. Otherwise, in the secondary outcomes, EMD only significantly reduced JE values and had no effect on GR and CAL.
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.