Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) vs Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barriers: Change in probing attachment level (PAL)
- Population
- Patients affected by chronic, aggressive, or early onset periodontitis, with intrabony defects having an intrabony component of at least 3 mm
- Intervention
- Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain)
- Comparison
- Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barriers
- Outcome
- Change in probing attachment level (PAL)
Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) showed no clear difference in change in probing attachment level (PAL) compared with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barriers (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) vs Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barriers Change in probing attachment level (PAL) · Patients affected by chronic, aggressive, or early onset periodontitis, with intrabony defects having an intrabony… · 1 year (time-points 1, 5 and 10 years planned) Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) showed no clear difference in change in probing attachment level (PAL) compared with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barriers (low certainty). Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain®) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects (2009) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD -0.2 [-0.55, 0.20] | 6 studies · 304 participants | Low |
Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) vs Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barriers Change in probing attachment level (PAL) · Patients affected by chronic, aggressive, or early onset periodontitis, with intrabony defects having an intrabony… · 1 year (time-points 1, 5 and 10 years planned) Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain®) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects (2005) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD003875.PUB2, superseded | There were no statistically significant differences for PAL (five trials). | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain®) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2009-02 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) vs placebo or control · Patients affected by chronic, aggressive, or early onset periodontitis, with intrabony… · 1 review
- Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) vs Various bone grafting (BG) procedures (animal-derived or synthetic bone / bioactive ceramic filler) · Patients affected by chronic, aggressive, or early onset periodontitis, with intrabony… · 1 review
- Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) vs Open flap debridement / control flap surgery (placebo vehicle gel in three trials) · Patients affected by periodontitis, with intrabony defects to be treated · 0 reviews
- Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) vs Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barriers · Patients affected by periodontitis, with intrabony defects to be treated · 0 reviews
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.