ArticleJournal of periodontal & implant science2024
Early wound healing at 1 week postoperatively in periodontal tissue regeneration therapy: enamel matrix derivative versus recombinant human fibroblast growth factor.
Article in Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Long-Term Outcomes of Enamel Matrix Derivative in the Treatment of Peri-Implant Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Impact of Dexamethasone on Three-Dimensional Stem Cell Spheroids: Morphology, Viability, Osteogenic Differentiation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRecombinant human fibroblast growth factor-2 (rhFGF-2) has demonstrated positive effects on wound healing at 2 weeks after periodontal surgery relative to enamel matrix derivative (EMD). However, the effects at earlier postoperative stages have not been reported. This retrospective study compared the early wound healing outcomes 1 week after surgery using the modified papilla preservation technique (mPPT) with either EMD or rhFGF-2 therapy.
methodsWe compiled a list of all mPPT sites treated with EMD or rhFGF-2 during the survey period (September 2011 to March 2022). Early wound healing was assessed using the early wound healing score (EHS) and the modified early wound healing index (mEHI). Inter-rater reliability for the EHS and mEHI was established using intraclass correlation coefficients. Factors influencing mPPT were identified by analyzing the correlation coefficients between the EHS items, mEHI items, and potential influencing factors. After adjusting for factors impacting EHS, mEHI, and mPPT, we compared the EHS and mEHI between EMD and rhFGF-2 groups.
resultsIn total, 72 sites were evaluated. The scores for incision line, step, and dehiscence were significantly higher in those receiving rhFGF-2 (n=42) compared to those treated with EMD (n=30). The EHS item scores did not differ significantly between groups. Among patients aged ≥50 years, but not those <50 years, significantly higher step and dehiscence scores were found in the rhFGF-2 group than the EMD group (
conclusionsIn this study, early wound closure at mPPT sites was more effectively achieved with rhFGF-2 than with EMD. Nevertheless, biochemical assessments are required to compare the re-epithelialization effects of these therapies.
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.