IADR Abstract Archives
Long-term Outcomes of Periodontal Regenerative Procedures: A Meta-analysis
Objectives: Periodontal regenerative procedures are performed to treat teeth with periodontal intrabony defects with the goal of reconstruction of the periodontium. It is imperative to analyze the long-term efficacy of these procedures by focusing on studies with long-term follow-ups. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the long-term efficacy of periodontal regenerative procedures for the treatment of intrabony defects.
Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies conducted in human subjects with intrabony periodontal defects treated with periodontal regenerative therapy and a minimum follow-up period of 5-years were included. All studies had to provide quantitative outcomes for tooth retention (primary outcome variable), clinical attachment level, probing depth, and vertical defect fill, or patient-centered outcomes. Electronic literature database search was performed in CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Gray literature and meeting abstracts were searched. Additionally, a manual search of the table of contents of relevant journals was performed. Meta-analysis was performed using CMA software (Biostat, Englewood, NJ). Data from included studies were pooled to estimate effect size.
Results: The literature search identified 1904 citations. Thirty-six citations met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative analysis showed a tooth survival rate of 91.7% (Event rate =0.917; 95%CI =0.90-0.93; heterogeneity I2<0.001%; ? <0.001; fixed model; n=36 studies). The meta-analysis revealed a mean gain in clinical attachment level of 3.24 mm (95%CI =2.82-3.66; heterogeneity I2=95.35%; ?=1.14; random effect model; n=21 studies). A mean gain of 3.62 mm in probing depth (95%CI =3.20-4.04; heterogeneity I2 =95.35%; ? =1.04; random effect model; n=20 studies), and a mean defect fill of 2.80 mm (95%CI =2.05-3.56; heterogeneity I2 =96.06%; ? =1.58; random effect model; n=13 studies). No studies reported patient-centered outcomes.
Conclusions: The available evidence supports the long-term efficacy of periodontal regeneration procedures for the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects.
Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies conducted in human subjects with intrabony periodontal defects treated with periodontal regenerative therapy and a minimum follow-up period of 5-years were included. All studies had to provide quantitative outcomes for tooth retention (primary outcome variable), clinical attachment level, probing depth, and vertical defect fill, or patient-centered outcomes. Electronic literature database search was performed in CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Gray literature and meeting abstracts were searched. Additionally, a manual search of the table of contents of relevant journals was performed. Meta-analysis was performed using CMA software (Biostat, Englewood, NJ). Data from included studies were pooled to estimate effect size.
Results: The literature search identified 1904 citations. Thirty-six citations met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative analysis showed a tooth survival rate of 91.7% (Event rate =0.917; 95%CI =0.90-0.93; heterogeneity I2<0.001%; ? <0.001; fixed model; n=36 studies). The meta-analysis revealed a mean gain in clinical attachment level of 3.24 mm (95%CI =2.82-3.66; heterogeneity I2=95.35%; ?=1.14; random effect model; n=21 studies). A mean gain of 3.62 mm in probing depth (95%CI =3.20-4.04; heterogeneity I2 =95.35%; ? =1.04; random effect model; n=20 studies), and a mean defect fill of 2.80 mm (95%CI =2.05-3.56; heterogeneity I2 =96.06%; ? =1.58; random effect model; n=13 studies). No studies reported patient-centered outcomes.
Conclusions: The available evidence supports the long-term efficacy of periodontal regeneration procedures for the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects.
