Bioactive glass for periodontal regeneration: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: One of the major clinical challenges of this age could be represented by the possibility to obtain a complete regeneration of infrabony defects. Over the past few years, numerous materials and different approaches have been developed to obtain bone and periodontal healing. Among all biomaterials, bioglasses (BG) are one of the most interesting due to their ability to form a highly reactive carbonate hydroxyapatite layer. Our aim was to systematically review the literature on the use and capability of BG for the treatment of periodontal defects and to perform a meta-analysis of their efficacy. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and DOSS was conducted in March 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using BG in the treatment of intrabony and furcation defects. Two reviewers selected the articles included in the study considering the inclusion criteria. The outcomes of interest were periodontal and bone regeneration in terms of decrease of probing depth (PD) and gain of clinical attachment level (CAL). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was fitted, according to the graph theory methodology, using a random effect model. RESULTS: Through the digital search, 46 citations were identified. After duplicate removal and screening process, 20 articles were included. All RCTs were retrieved and rated following the Risk of bias 2 scale, revealing several potential sources of bias. The meta-analysis focused on the evaluation at 6 months, with 12 eligible articles for PD and 10 for CAL. As regards the PD at 6 months, AUTOGENOUS CORTICAL BONE, BIOGLASS and PLATELET RICH FIBRIN were more efficacious than open flap debridement alone, with a statistically significant standardized mean difference (SMD) equal to -1.57, -1.06 and − 2.89, respectively. As to CAL at 6 months, the effect of BIOGLASS is reduced and no longer significant (SMD = -0.19, p-value = 0.4) and curiously PLATELET RICH FIBRIN was more efficacious than OFD (SMD =-4.13, p-value < 0.001) in CAL gain, but in indirect evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The present review partially supports the clinical efficacy of BG in periodontal regeneration treatments for periodontal purposes. Indeed, the SMD of 0.5 to 1 in PD and CAL obtained with BG compared to OFD alone seem clinically insignificant even if it is statistically significant. Heterogeneity sources related to periodontal surgery are multiple, difficult to assess and likely hamper a quantitative assessment of BG efficacy.