Cargando…
Intra-marrow penetrations and root coverage outcomes: a systematic review
BACKGROUND: Intra-marrow penetrations (IMPs) have been performed during guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedures with reported clinical benefits. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the use and effect of IMPs during root coverage procedures. METHOD: A broad search for human and a...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10157995/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37138270 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02964-6 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Intra-marrow penetrations (IMPs) have been performed during guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedures with reported clinical benefits. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the use and effect of IMPs during root coverage procedures. METHOD: A broad search for human and animal studies was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials and Web of Science, following a registered review protocol (PROSPERO). All prospective study designs, case series and case reports on gingival recession treatment (follow-up ≥ 6 months) that employed IMPs were included. Root coverage, complete root coverage prevalence, and adverse effects were recorded, and risk of bias was assessed. RESULTS: Of 16,181 screened titles, 5 articles (all of them human studies) met inclusion criteria. All studies (including two randomized clinical trials) treated Miller class I and II recession defects, using coronally advanced flap with IMPs alone or in conjunction with GTR protocols. Therefore, all treated defects received IMPs and no studies compared protocols with and without IMPs. Outcomes were indirectly compared with existing root coverage literature. Mean root coverage was 2.7 mm and 68.5% at 6.8 months (median: 6 months, range 6–15 months) for sites treated with IMPs. CONCLUSION: IMPs are rarely used during root coverage procedures, have not been associated with intra-surgical or wound healing adverse effects and have not been investigated as independent factor. Future clinical studies are needed to directly compare treatment protocols with and without IMPs and investigate the potential benefits of IMPs for root coverage. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-023-02964-6. |
---|