{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024586499776486366, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009834599910594547, 'mean_word_length': 5.0, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative in reconstructive periodontal therapy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND
Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) is commonly used in periodontal therapy. The aim of this systematic review is to give an updated answer to the question of whether the additional use of EMD in periodontal therapy is more effective compared with a control or other regenerative procedures.


METHODS
A literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed) for the use of EMD in periodontal treatment was performed up to May 2010. The use of EMD in treatment of intrabony defects, furcations, and recessions was evaluated. Only randomized controlled trials with ≥1 year of follow-up were included. The primary outcome variable for intrabony defects was the change in clinical attachment level (CAL), for furcations the change in horizontal furcation depth, and for recession complete root coverage.


RESULTS
After screening, 27 studies (20 for intrabony defects, one for furcation, and six for recession) were eligible for the review. A meta-analysis was performed for intrabony defects and recession. The treatment of intrabony defects with EMD showed a significant additional gain in CAL of 1.30 mm compared with open-flap debridement, EDTA, or placebo, but no significant difference compared with resorbable membranes was shown. The use of EMD in combination with a coronally advanced flap compared with a coronally advanced flap alone showed significantly more complete root coverage (odds ratio of 3.5), but compared with a connective tissue graft, the result was not significantly different. The use of EMD in furcations (2.6 ± 1.8 mm) gave significantly more improvement in horizontal defect depth compared with resorbable membranes (1.9 ± 1.4 mm) as shown in one study.


CONCLUSIONS
In the treatment of intrabony defects, the use of EMD is superior to control treatments but as effective as resorbable membranes. The additional use of EMD with a coronally advanced flap for recession coverage will give superior results compared with a control but is as effective as a connective tissue graft. The use of EMD in furcations will give more reduction in horizontal furcation defect depth compared with resorbable membranes.