SynthesisOral health & preventive dentistry2026
Comparison of Hyaluronic Acid Versus Enamel Matrix Derivative in the Treatment of Intrabony Periodontal Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEvaluate the potential non-inferiority of hyaluronic acid (HA) when compared to enamel matrix derivative (EMD) for the surgical management of intrabony defects. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Google Scholar, LILACS, following PRISMA guidelines. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between HA and EMD were estimated using a random-effect model for clinical attachment level (CAL gain, primary outcome), probing pocket depth (PPD), and gingival recession (REC). A non-inferiority margin of 0.5 mm was defined for CAL. In order to minimise bias, only randomised clinical studies (RCTs) were selected.
resultsAcross 117 articles, 3 RCTs were included. HA achieved clinical non-inferiority in CAL gain versus EMD (WMD = 0.51 mm, CI [-0.08; 1.11] at 12 months, WMD = 0.53 mm). Regarding PPD, the data do not support the non-inferiority hypothesis in comparison to EMD at 12 months (PPD: WMD = 0.71 mm, CI [-0.11; 1,54], I2=72.5%). For gingival recession, HA demonstrated clinical non-inferiority at 12 months (WMD = -0.4 mm, CI [-0.79; -0.01], I2 = 0).
conclusionWithin the limits, the present data indicate that HA could be an alternative to EMD in intrabony defects. Further RCTs are required to consolidate these preliminary results. Prospero registration number: CRD420261301986.
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.