Medium‐ and long‐term clinical benefits of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures in intrabony defects: Systematic review and network meta‐analysis of randomized controlled clinical studies

• Published in: Journal of clinical periodontology Vol. 48; no. 3; pp. 410 - 430
• Main Authors: Stavropoulos, Andreas, Bertl, Kristina, Spineli, Loukia M., Sculean, Anton, Cortellini, Pierpaolo, Tonetti, Maurizio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.03.2021; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: Alveolar Bone Loss - diagnostic imaging; Alveolar Bone Loss - surgery; Bayesian analysis; bone grafts; bone substitutes; Bone Transplantation; Clinical trials; Dental Enamel Proteins - therapeutic use; EMD; enamel matrix proteins; Follow-Up Studies; GTR; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; long‐term; Meta-analysis; Network Meta-Analysis; Periodontal Attachment Loss - surgery; periodontal regeneration; Periodontal Therapy; Periodontitis; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures; Statistical analysis; Systematic Review; Treatment Outcome; bone substitutes; periodontal regeneration; GTR; enamel matrix proteins; bone grafts; systematic review; EMD; long-term
• ISSN: 0303-6979; 1600-051X; 1600-051X
• DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13409

Background Systematic reviews have established the short‐term improvements of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures compared to conventional surgical treatment in intrabony defects. However, a hierarchy of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures regarding the medium‐ to long‐term results of treatment does not exist. Aim To systematically assess the literature to answer the focused question “In periodontitis patients with intrabony defects, what are the medium‐ and long‐term benefits of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures compared with open flap debridement (OFD), in terms of clinical and/or radiographic outcome parameters and tooth retention?”. Material & Methods Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), reporting on clinical and/or radiographic outcome parameters of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures ≥3 years post‐operatively, were systematically assessed. Clinical [residual probing pocket depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, tooth loss] and radiographic [residual defect depth (RDD), bone gain (RBL)] outcome parameters were assessed. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and Bayesian random‐effects network meta‐analyses (NMA) were performed where possible. Results Thirty RCTs, presenting data 3 to 20 years after treatment with grafting, GTR, EMD, as monotherapies, combinations thereof, and/or adjunctive use of blood‐derived growth factor constructs or with OFD only, were included. NMA based on 21 RCTs showed that OFD was clearly the least efficacious treatment; regenerative/reconstructive treatments resulted in significantly shallower residual PD in 4 out 8 comparisons [range of mean differences (MD): −2.37 to −0.60 mm] and larger CAL gain in 6 out 8 comparisons (range of MD: 1.26 to 2.66 mm), and combination approaches appeared as the most efficacious. Tooth loss after regenerative/reconstructive treatment was less frequent (0.4%) compared to OFD (2.8%), but the evidence was sparse. There were only sparse radiographic data not allowing any relevant comparisons. Conclusion Periodontal regenerative/reconstructive therapy in intrabony defects results, in general, in shallower residual PD and larger CAL gain compared with OFD, translating in high rates of tooth survival, on a medium (3–5 years) to long‐term basis (5–20 years). Combination approaches appear, in general, more efficacious compared to monotherapy in terms of shallower residual PD and larger CAL gain. A clear hierarchy could, however, not be established due to limited evidence.