A Clinical Comparison of a Bovine‐Derived Xenograft Used Alone and in Combination With Enamel Matrix Derivative for the Treatment of Periodontal Osseous Defects in Humans

Scheyer, E. Todd; Velasquez-Plata, Diega; Brunsvold, Michael A.; Lasho, David J.; Mellonig, James T.

doi:10.1902/jop.2002.73.4.423

Cited by 78 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite these in vitro results, there remains a variety of mixed results over the clinical efficacy of combining Emdogain® with a bone grafting material for clinical use. While some clinical trials have demonstrated that the combination provides additional regeneration, others have failed to show any additional benefit when compared to bone grafting material used alone or Emdogain® used alone [9,12,14,28,29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone grafting material in combination with Osteogain for bone repair: a rat histomorphometric study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone grafting material in combination with Osteogain for bone repair: a rat histomorphometric study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Study that was included in the meta-analysis regarding the treatment with GTR. Study that was included in the meta-analysis regarding the treatment with EMD combined with GTR.e Study that was included in the meta-analysis regarding the treatment with EMD combined with BDX.f Study that was included in the meta-analysis regarding the treatment with BDX alone.xenograft (BDX) (Lekovic et al, 2000(Lekovic et al, , 2001aCamargo et al, 2001;Scheyer et al, 2002;Sculean et al, 2002cSculean et al, , 2003a VelasquezPlata et al, 2002), alloplastic synthetic bone graft (BG) (Sculean et al, 2002b), and demineralized or mineralized freeze-dried bone allografts (DFDBA/FDBA) (Rosen and Reynolds, 2002 Camargo et al, 2001). Similar results were obtained when EMD or autologous fibrinogen/fibronectin system (AFFS) was used in combination with BDX (Lekovic et al, 2001b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Enamel Matrix Derivative in the Treatment of Periodontal Defects: a Literature Review and Meta-analysis

Venezia

Goldstein

Boyan

et al. 2004

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

156

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-Periodontal disease results in the loss of the attachment apparatus. In the last three decades, an increasing effort has been placed on seeking procedures and materials to promote the regeneration of this tissue. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the effect of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) during regenerative procedures. In addition, a meta-analysis is presented regarding the clinical results during regeneration with EMD, to gain evidence as to what can be accomplished following treatment of intrabony defects with EMD in terms of probing depth reduction, clinical attachment level gain, defect fill (using re-entry studies), and radiographic parameters. Methods-The review includes in vitro and in vivo studies as well as human case reports, clinical comparative trials, and histologic findings. In addition, a meta-analysis is presented regarding the regenerative clinical results. For this purpose, we used 28 studies-including 955 intrabony defects treated with EMD that presented baseline and final data on probing depth, clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, or bone gain-to calculate weighted mean changes in the different parameters. The selected studies were pooled from the MEDLINE database at the end of May, 2003. Results-The meta-analysis of intrabony defects treated with EMD resulted in a mean initial probing depth of 7.94 ± 0.05 mm that was reduced to 3.63 ± 0.04 mm (p = 0.000). The mean clinical attachment level changed from 9.4 ± 0.06 mm to 5.82 ± 0.07 mm (p = 0.000). These results were significantly better than the results obtained for either open-flap debridement (OFD) or guided tissue regeneration (GTR). In contrast, histologically, GTR is more predictable than EMD in terms of bone and cementum formation. No advantage was found for combining EMD and GTR. Xenograft, or EMD and xenograft, yielded inferior results compared with EMD alone, but a limited number of studies evaluated this issue. Promising results were noted for the combination of allograft materials and EMD. Conclusions-EMD seems to be safe, was able to regenerate lost periodontal tissues in previously diseased sites based on clinical parameters, and was better than OFD or GTR. Its combination with allograft materials may be of additional benefit but still needs to be further investigated.Key words. Enamel matrix derivative, Emdogain ® , meta-analysis, periodontal regeneration. States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).In 1997, an alternative approach for periodontal regeneration was introduced that was based on embryonic tooth formation (Hammarström, 1997;Heijl et al., 1997). This approach uses an extract of embryonic enamel matrix, termed 'enamel matrix derivative' (EMD), thought to induce mesenchymal cells to mimic the processes that take place during the development of the nascent root and periodontal tissues. The present analysis reviews the data on the effect of EMD as a regenerative promoter. It encompasses in vitro and in vivo studies as well as human case reports, clinical comparative trials, and histologic findin...

show abstract

“…However, a recent study comparing the combination of EMD and a bioactive glass to EMD alone failed to show any significant differences between the 2 groups [125] . Furthermore, clinical studies comparing treatment with a combination of EMD and a bone graft/bone substitute to bone graft/bone substitute alone did not demonstrate any advantage of the combination approach [126][127][128] . Thus, it may be speculated that the type of the bone graft/bone substitute and the volume and configuration of the defects are also important factors which might influence the clinical outcomes.…”

Section: Combination Therapies In Intrabony Defectsmentioning

confidence: 95%

The Application of an Enamel Matrix Protein Derivative (Emdogain®) in Regenerative Periodontal Therapy: A Review

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regenerative periodontal therapy aims at reconstitution of the lost periodontal structures such as new formation of root cementum, periodontal ligament and alveolar bone. Findings from basic research indicate that enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) has a key role in periodontal wound healing. Histological results from animal and human studies have shown that treatment with EMD promotes periodontal regeneration. Moreover, clinical studies have indicated that treatment with EMD positively influences periodontal wound healing in humans. This review aims to present an overview of evidence-based clinical indications for regenerative therapy with EMD.

show abstract

A Clinical Comparison of a Bovine‐Derived Xenograft Used Alone and in Combination With Enamel Matrix Derivative for the Treatment of Periodontal Osseous Defects in Humans

Abstract: In summary, both the particulate anorganic cancellous bovine-derived bone xenograft used alone and in combination with enamel matrix derivative are effective for the treatment of human intrabony periodontal lesions.

Cited by 78 publications

References 53 publications

Bone grafting material in combination with Osteogain for bone repair: a rat histomorphometric study

Bone grafting material in combination with Osteogain for bone repair: a rat histomorphometric study

The Use of Enamel Matrix Derivative in the Treatment of Periodontal Defects: a Literature Review and Meta-analysis

The Application of an Enamel Matrix Protein Derivative (Emdogain®) in Regenerative Periodontal Therapy: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About