Comparison of Hyaluronic Acid Versus Enamel Matrix Derivative in the Treatment of Intrabony Periodontal Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Théo Mahintach, Camille Bechina, Sofiya Galina, Assem Soueidan, Christian Verner, Xavier Struillou
{"title":"Comparison of Hyaluronic Acid Versus Enamel Matrix Derivative in the Treatment of Intrabony Periodontal Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Théo Mahintach, Camille Bechina, Sofiya Galina, Assem Soueidan, Christian Verner, Xavier Struillou","doi":"10.3290/j.ohpd.c_2808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Evaluate the potential non-inferiority of hyaluronic acid (HA) when compared to enamel matrix derivative (EMD) for the surgical management of intrabony defects.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>A systematic search was performed in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Google Scholar, LILACS, following PRISMA guidelines. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between HA and EMD were estimated using a random-effect model for clinical attachment level (CAL gain, primary outcome), probing pocket depth (PPD), and gingival recession (REC). A non-inferiority margin of 0.5 mm was defined for CAL. In order to minimise bias, only randomised clinical studies (RCTs) were selected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 117 articles, 3 RCTs were included. HA achieved clinical non-inferiority in CAL gain versus EMD (WMD = 0.51 mm, CI [-0.08; 1.11] at 12 months, WMD = 0.53 mm). Regarding PPD, the data do not support the non-inferiority hypothesis in comparison to EMD at 12 months (PPD: WMD = 0.71 mm, CI [-0.11; 1,54], I2=72.5%). For gingival recession, HA demonstrated clinical non-inferiority at 12 months (WMD = -0.4 mm, CI [-0.79; -0.01], I2 = 0).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the limits, the present data indicate that HA could be an alternative to EMD in intrabony defects. Further RCTs are required to consolidate these preliminary results. Prospero registration number: CRD420261301986.</p>","PeriodicalId":19696,"journal":{"name":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","volume":"24 ","pages":"865-875"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13584719/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.c_2808","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Evaluate the potential non-inferiority of hyaluronic acid (HA) when compared to enamel matrix derivative (EMD) for the surgical management of intrabony defects.

Methods and materials: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Google Scholar, LILACS, following PRISMA guidelines. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between HA and EMD were estimated using a random-effect model for clinical attachment level (CAL gain, primary outcome), probing pocket depth (PPD), and gingival recession (REC). A non-inferiority margin of 0.5 mm was defined for CAL. In order to minimise bias, only randomised clinical studies (RCTs) were selected.

Results: Across 117 articles, 3 RCTs were included. HA achieved clinical non-inferiority in CAL gain versus EMD (WMD = 0.51 mm, CI [-0.08; 1.11] at 12 months, WMD = 0.53 mm). Regarding PPD, the data do not support the non-inferiority hypothesis in comparison to EMD at 12 months (PPD: WMD = 0.71 mm, CI [-0.11; 1,54], I2=72.5%). For gingival recession, HA demonstrated clinical non-inferiority at 12 months (WMD = -0.4 mm, CI [-0.79; -0.01], I2 = 0).

Conclusion: Within the limits, the present data indicate that HA could be an alternative to EMD in intrabony defects. Further RCTs are required to consolidate these preliminary results. Prospero registration number: CRD420261301986.

透明质酸与牙釉质基质衍生物治疗骨内牙周缺损的比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。
目的:评价透明质酸(HA)与牙釉质基质衍生物(EMD)在骨内缺损手术治疗中的潜在非劣效性。方法和材料:系统检索PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus,谷歌Scholar, LILACS,遵循PRISMA指南。采用随机效应模型估计HA和EMD之间的加权平均差异(WMD)和95%置信区间(CI),用于临床依恋水平(CAL增益,主要结局),探测口袋深度(PPD)和牙龈退缩(REC)。CAL的非劣效性界限为0.5 mm。为了尽量减少偏倚,只选择了随机临床研究(rct)。结果:117篇文章纳入3项随机对照试验。与EMD相比,HA在CAL增益方面达到临床非劣效性(12个月时WMD = 0.51 mm, CI [-0.08; 1.11], WMD = 0.53 mm)。关于PPD,与EMD相比,数据不支持12个月时的非劣效假设(PPD: WMD = 0.71 mm, CI [-0.11; 1,54], I2=72.5%)。对于牙龈萎缩,HA在12个月时表现出临床非劣效性(WMD = -0.4 mm, CI [-0.79; -0.01], I2 = 0)。结论:在一定范围内,目前的数据表明HA可以替代EMD治疗骨内缺陷。需要进一步的随机对照试验来巩固这些初步结果。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD420261301986。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Oral health & preventive dentistry
Oral health & preventive dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinicians, general practitioners, teachers, researchers, and public health administrators will find this journal an indispensable source of essential, timely information about scientific progress in the fields of oral health and the prevention of caries, periodontal diseases, oral mucosal diseases, and dental trauma. Central topics, including oral hygiene, oral epidemiology, oral health promotion, and public health issues, are covered in peer-reviewed articles such as clinical and basic science research reports; reviews; invited focus articles, commentaries, and guest editorials; and symposium, workshop, and conference proceedings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书