Volume 39, Issue 3 pp. 303-314
Periodontal Therapy

A bayesian network meta-analysis on comparisons of enamel matrix derivatives, guided tissue regeneration and their combination therapies

Yu-Kang Tu

Corresponding Author

Yu-Kang Tu

Department of Periodontology, Leeds Dental Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Division of Biostatistics, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health and Therapeutics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Address:

Y.-K. Tu

Division of Biostatistics, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health and Therapeutics, University of Leeds, Room 8.01, Level 8, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

E-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Ian Needleman

Ian Needleman

Unit of Periodontology and International Centre for Evidence-Based Oral Health, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Leandro Chambrone

Leandro Chambrone

Division of Periodontics, Department of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Search for more papers by this author
Hsein-Kun Lu

Hsein-Kun Lu

Department of Periodontology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan

Search for more papers by this author
Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr

Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr

Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 10 January 2012
Citations: 114

Conflict of interest and source of funding statement:

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

The first author was funded by the United Kingdom government's Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The last author is partially funded by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg.

Abstract

Aims

Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) and enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) are two popular regenerative treatments for periodontal infrabony lesions. Both have been used in conjunction with other regenerative materials. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on treatment effects of GTR, EMD and their combination therapies.

Material and Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using the Medline, EMBASE, LILACS and CENTRAL databases up to and including June 2011. Treatment outcomes were changes in probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and infrabony defect depth. Different types of bone grafts were treated as one group and so were barrier membranes.

Results

A total of 53 studies were included in this review, and we found small differences between regenerative therapies which were non-significant statistically and clinically. GTR and GTR-related combination therapies achieved greater PPD reduction than EMD and EMD-related combination therapies. Combination therapies achieved slightly greater CAL gain than the use of EMD or GTR alone. GTR with BG achieved greatest defect fill.

Conclusion

Combination therapies performed better than single therapies, but the additional benefits were small. Bayesian network meta-analysis is a promising technique to compare multiple treatments. Further analysis of methodological characteristics will be required prior to clinical recommendations.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.