|
Title |
Use Of Emdogain In The Treatment Of Gingival recession |
Clinical Question |
In an adult patient with gingival recession, does using Emdogain, as opposed to not using Emdogain, enhance the outcome of periodontal surgery? |
Clinical Bottom Line |
The use of Emdogain can enhance the benefits of surgery in a patient with gingival recession. (See Comments on the CAT below) |
Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
#1) 19370675 | Chambrone/2009 | 24 randomized controlled trials | Meta-Analysis | Key results | Based on the 24 randomized controlled trials included in this meta-analysis, the authors concluded that the use of enamel matrix protein (Emdogain) resulted in a greater increase of keratinized tissue when compared to a coronally advanced flap alone. | #2) 18724847 | Cairo/2008 | 530 patients from 25 RCTs | Systematic Review | Key results | The use of enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) in conjunction with a coronally advanced flap yields a greater probability of obtaining complete root coverage. | |
Evidence Search |
(enamel matrix proteins;[Substance Name] AND; Gingival Recession;[Mesh]) |
Comments on
The Evidence |
The evidence consists of a meta-analysis and a systematic review, the 2 highest levels of evidence available. |
Applicability |
These results are applicable to adult patients with mild gingival recession. Cairo et. al limited their study to Miller Class I and II single gingival recessions and their results may not be applicable to patients with more severe recession. |
Specialty/Discipline |
(Periodontics) |
Keywords |
Gingival recession, emdogain, enamel matrix derivative, enamel matrix protein, coronally advanced flap, periodontal regeneration
|
ID# |
497 |
Date of submission: |
01/07/2010 |
E-mail |
|
Author |
Ashley Jackson |
Co-author(s) |
Elizabeth Wallmann |
Co-author(s) e-mail |
elizabeth.wallmann@gmail.com |
Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Bjorn Steffensen, DDS |
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
SteffensenB@uthscsa.edu |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
by Chungmi Jo (San Antonio, TX) on 04/13/2012 After searching on PubMed on April 2012, I have found a more recent publication that is applicable to this CAT: PubMed ID 21491012. This randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted with 56 Millar Class I and Class II gingival recession. According to this study, when connective tissue graft alone (CTG) was compared to combination of CTG and EMD, results were statistically insignificant. | |
|
|