ArticleJournal of periodontology2026
Periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative and decortication: A retrospective analysis of 1-year clinical and radiographic outcomes.
Article in Journal of periodontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- TAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntrabony periodontal defects present a clinical challenge. Decortication, also called intramarrow penetration (IMP), intended to stimulate angiogenesis and to enhance the healing environment, has demonstrated benefits in bone augmentation but remains insufficiently investigated in periodontal regenerative procedures, especially in combination with enamel matrix derivative (EMD).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients treated with EMD alone (control group) or with EMD combined with IMP (test group). The primary outcome was clinical attachment level (CAL) gain at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included probing pocket depth (PPD), gingival recession (REC), keratinized tissue width (KTW), and radiographic parameters such as defect depth (rDD), defect width (rDW), and defect angle (rANG). Linear regression with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to account for clustering, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The significance was set at α = 0.05.
resultsA total of 29 patients (39 teeth) were included. Both groups exhibited statistically significant improvements in clinical and radiographic parameters between baseline and 12 months (p < 0.05). In the test group, the mean PPD decreased by 3.86 ± 1.73 mm, the CAL gain was 3.18 ± 1.30 mm, and the REC increased by 0.68 ± 1.21 mm; radiographically, rDD and rDW were significantly reduced, whereas rANG did not change significantly. Similarly, in the control group, PPD decreased by 3.47 ± 1.33 mm, CAL gain was 2.82 ± 1.29 mm, REC increased by 0.65 ± 1.00 mm, and significant reductions in rDD and rDW were observed. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups for any parameter at 12 months (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe adjunctive use of IMP did not significantly enhance the clinical or radiographic outcomes achieved with EMD alone. However, the comparable outcomes achieved in more challenging baseline conditions indicate that the technique merits further investigation in future randomized controlled studies.
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.