We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry



Forgotten password?


Dear readers,

our online journals are moving. The new (and old) issues of all journals can be found at
In most cases you can log in there directly with your e-mail address and your current password. Otherwise we ask you to register again. Thank you very much.

Your Quintessence Publishing House
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 37 (2017), No. 4     3. July 2017
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 37 (2017), No. 4  (03.07.2017)

Online Article, Page 224-233, doi:10.11607/prd.2900, PubMed:28609503

Online Article: The Effect of Enamel Matrix Derivative Alone Versus in Combination with Alloplastic Materials to Treat Intrabony Defects: A Meta-analysis
Liu, Yang / Hu, Bo / Zhou, Jingli / Li, Wenyang / Liu, Qin / Song, Jinlin
This meta-analysis aims to compare the effect of the application of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) used alone with that of its use in combination with alloplastic materials in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects. Relevant studies were retrieved from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase through November 2015. The main clinical outcomes were pocket probing depth (PPD) reduction, clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, gingival recession (REC) increase, and defect fill gain. Two separate meta-analyses were performed according to the length of follow-up. Nine articles were included. The results demonstrated that in the short-term follow-up group (≤ 1 year), in terms of PPD reduction (P < .05) and REC increase (P < .05), the application of an EMD combined with alloplastic materials provided advantages compared to EMD used alone. For CAL gain (P = .17) and gain of defect fill (P = .07), no significant differences were observed. In the long-term follow-up group (> 1 year), no significant differences in terms of REC increase (P = .05) were found between the groups, but combined therapy exhibited an advantage in terms of PPD reduction (P < .05), CAL gain (P < .05), and gain in defect fill (P < .05). Within its limitations, this meta-analysis indicated that the additional benefit of combined therapy in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects compared with EMD used alone cannot be proven.
fulltext (no access granted) Endnote-Export