Paolo Pesce, Luigi Canullo, Tiziano Testori, Alessandro Mastroianni, Massimo Del Fabbro, Maria Menini
{"title":"骨穿孔在牙周再生和牙槽窝保存中的临床效果:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Paolo Pesce, Luigi Canullo, Tiziano Testori, Alessandro Mastroianni, Massimo Del Fabbro, Maria Menini","doi":"10.1007/s00784-025-06152-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The present systematic review aimed to evaluate if cortical bone perforation is effective in enhancing periodontal surgery and guided bone regeneration (GBR) in humans.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Electronic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane CENTRAL up to October 31st, 2023. Grey literature was also searched. Prospective controlled studies were included. Two PICO questions were created; one focusing on the effect of bone perforation in the treatment of peridodontal intrabony defects (primary outcome probing depth (PD)) and one focusing on the effect of bone perforation in guided bone regeneration (primary outcome: histologic and histomorphometric data). The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool for cohort studies. Pairwise meta-analysis was undertaken when possible, to estimate the overall effect for the outcomes investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search on databases yielded a total of 653 articles. After screening, five RCTs and one non-randomized study were included. A meta-analysis was performed for the first PICO. PD was evaluated in 4 articles and no significant difference was found between the perforation vs. no perforation groups (0.11 mm (95% CI [-0.14 to 0.37 mm], P = 0.38). Additionally, radiographic defect depth (mean difference 0.77 mm, 95% CI [0.24 to 1.30 mm], P = 0.004) and distance between cemento-enamel junction and bone defect (standardized mean difference 0.98 mm, 95% CI [0.47 to 1.50 mm], P = 0.0002) resulted improved in the cortical bone perforation group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The evidence supporting a positive effect of using cortical perforations is very poor. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to determine whether decortication brings meaningful advantages.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>This study is focused on clinical studies and, using a rigorous study selection and a meta-analytic approach suggests that the apparent positive effect of bone decortication on the regeneration process still requires to be confirmed by more solid evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":10461,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Investigations","volume":"29 1","pages":"64"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11735581/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The clinical effect of bone perforations in periodontal regeneration and alveolar socket preservation: a systematic review with meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Paolo Pesce, Luigi Canullo, Tiziano Testori, Alessandro Mastroianni, Massimo Del Fabbro, Maria Menini\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00784-025-06152-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The present systematic review aimed to evaluate if cortical bone perforation is effective in enhancing periodontal surgery and guided bone regeneration (GBR) in humans.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Electronic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane CENTRAL up to October 31st, 2023. Grey literature was also searched. Prospective controlled studies were included. Two PICO questions were created; one focusing on the effect of bone perforation in the treatment of peridodontal intrabony defects (primary outcome probing depth (PD)) and one focusing on the effect of bone perforation in guided bone regeneration (primary outcome: histologic and histomorphometric data). The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool for cohort studies. Pairwise meta-analysis was undertaken when possible, to estimate the overall effect for the outcomes investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search on databases yielded a total of 653 articles. After screening, five RCTs and one non-randomized study were included. A meta-analysis was performed for the first PICO. PD was evaluated in 4 articles and no significant difference was found between the perforation vs. no perforation groups (0.11 mm (95% CI [-0.14 to 0.37 mm], P = 0.38). Additionally, radiographic defect depth (mean difference 0.77 mm, 95% CI [0.24 to 1.30 mm], P = 0.004) and distance between cemento-enamel junction and bone defect (standardized mean difference 0.98 mm, 95% CI [0.47 to 1.50 mm], P = 0.0002) resulted improved in the cortical bone perforation group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The evidence supporting a positive effect of using cortical perforations is very poor. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to determine whether decortication brings meaningful advantages.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>This study is focused on clinical studies and, using a rigorous study selection and a meta-analytic approach suggests that the apparent positive effect of bone decortication on the regeneration process still requires to be confirmed by more solid evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Investigations\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"64\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11735581/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Oral Investigations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-025-06152-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-025-06152-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本系统综述旨在评估皮质骨穿孔在促进人类牙周手术和引导骨再生(GBR)方面是否有效。材料与方法:截止2023年10月31日,在PubMed、Scopus和Cochrane CENTRAL进行电子检索。灰色文献也被检索。纳入前瞻性对照研究。创建了两个PICO问题;一项研究重点是骨穿孔在治疗牙周骨内缺损中的作用(主要结果探查深度(PD)),另一项研究重点是骨穿孔在引导骨再生中的作用(主要结果:组织学和组织形态学数据)。采用Cochrane随机对照研究工具(rct)和Joanna Briggs研究所队列研究关键评估工具对纳入研究的偏倚风险进行评估。在可能的情况下进行两两荟萃分析,以估计所调查结果的总体影响。结果:在数据库中检索到653篇文章。筛选后纳入5项随机对照试验和1项非随机研究。对第一例PICO进行meta分析。4篇文章评估了PD,穿孔组与未穿孔组之间无显著差异(0.11 mm (95% CI[-0.14至0.37 mm], P = 0.38)。此外,骨皮质穿孔组的x线片缺损深度(平均差0.77 mm, 95% CI [0.24 ~ 1.30 mm], P = 0.004)和骨水泥-牙釉质接点与骨缺损之间的距离(标准化平均差0.98 mm, 95% CI [0.47 ~ 1.50 mm], P = 0.0002)均有改善。结论:支持皮质穿孔术积极效果的证据很少。去皮化是否带来了有意义的优势,还需要更大样本量的进一步研究来确定。临床相关性:本研究侧重于临床研究,通过严格的研究选择和荟萃分析方法表明骨去皮化对再生过程的明显积极作用仍需要更确凿的证据来证实。
The clinical effect of bone perforations in periodontal regeneration and alveolar socket preservation: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Objectives: The present systematic review aimed to evaluate if cortical bone perforation is effective in enhancing periodontal surgery and guided bone regeneration (GBR) in humans.
Materials and methods: Electronic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane CENTRAL up to October 31st, 2023. Grey literature was also searched. Prospective controlled studies were included. Two PICO questions were created; one focusing on the effect of bone perforation in the treatment of peridodontal intrabony defects (primary outcome probing depth (PD)) and one focusing on the effect of bone perforation in guided bone regeneration (primary outcome: histologic and histomorphometric data). The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool for cohort studies. Pairwise meta-analysis was undertaken when possible, to estimate the overall effect for the outcomes investigated.
Results: The search on databases yielded a total of 653 articles. After screening, five RCTs and one non-randomized study were included. A meta-analysis was performed for the first PICO. PD was evaluated in 4 articles and no significant difference was found between the perforation vs. no perforation groups (0.11 mm (95% CI [-0.14 to 0.37 mm], P = 0.38). Additionally, radiographic defect depth (mean difference 0.77 mm, 95% CI [0.24 to 1.30 mm], P = 0.004) and distance between cemento-enamel junction and bone defect (standardized mean difference 0.98 mm, 95% CI [0.47 to 1.50 mm], P = 0.0002) resulted improved in the cortical bone perforation group.
Conclusion: The evidence supporting a positive effect of using cortical perforations is very poor. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to determine whether decortication brings meaningful advantages.
Clinical relevance: This study is focused on clinical studies and, using a rigorous study selection and a meta-analytic approach suggests that the apparent positive effect of bone decortication on the regeneration process still requires to be confirmed by more solid evidence.
期刊介绍:
The journal Clinical Oral Investigations is a multidisciplinary, international forum for publication of research from all fields of oral medicine. The journal publishes original scientific articles and invited reviews which provide up-to-date results of basic and clinical studies in oral and maxillofacial science and medicine. The aim is to clarify the relevance of new results to modern practice, for an international readership. Coverage includes maxillofacial and oral surgery, prosthetics and restorative dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontology, orthodontics, dental materials science, clinical trials, epidemiology, pedodontics, oral implant, preventive dentistiry, oral pathology, oral basic sciences and more.