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

Yu Kang Tu, Ian Needleman, Leandro Chambrone, Hsein Kun Lu, Clovis Mariano Faggion

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

76 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)303-314
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Clinical Periodontology
Volume39
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2012

Fingerprint

Guided Tissue Regeneration
Dental Enamel
Therapeutics
Network Meta-Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Databases
Transplants
Bone and Bones
Membranes

Keywords

  • enamel matrix derivatives
  • guided tissue regeneration
  • network meta-analysis
  • randomized controlled trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Periodontics

Cite this

A bayesian network meta-analysis on comparisons of enamel matrix derivatives, guided tissue regeneration and their combination therapies. / Tu, Yu Kang; Needleman, Ian; Chambrone, Leandro; Lu, Hsein Kun; Faggion, Clovis Mariano.

In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Vol. 39, No. 3, 03.2012, p. 303-314.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4190757f98bd427dbf73465112b96d7c,
title = "A bayesian network meta-analysis on comparisons of enamel matrix derivatives, guided tissue regeneration and their combination therapies",
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.",
keywords = "enamel matrix derivatives, guided tissue regeneration, network meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials",
author = "Tu, {Yu Kang} and Ian Needleman and Leandro Chambrone and Lu, {Hsein Kun} and Faggion, {Clovis Mariano}",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01844.x",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "303--314",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Periodontology",
issn = "0303-6979",
publisher = "Blackwell Munksgaard",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A bayesian network meta-analysis on comparisons of enamel matrix derivatives, guided tissue regeneration and their combination therapies

AU - Tu, Yu Kang

AU - Needleman, Ian

AU - Chambrone, Leandro

AU - Lu, Hsein Kun

AU - Faggion, Clovis Mariano

PY - 2012/3

Y1 - 2012/3

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - enamel matrix derivatives

KW - guided tissue regeneration

KW - network meta-analysis

KW - randomized controlled trials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84856598118&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84856598118&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01844.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01844.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 22393565

AN - SCOPUS:84856598118

VL - 39

SP - 303

EP - 314

JO - Journal of Clinical Periodontology

JF - Journal of Clinical Periodontology

SN - 0303-6979

IS - 3

ER -