Advertisement

Expression of gingival crevicular fluid markers during early and late healing of intrabony defects after surgical treatment: a systematic review

  • V. P. KoidouEmail author
  • G. S. Chatzopoulos
  • I. Tomas
  • L. Nibali
  • N. Donos
Open Access
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Surgical treatments such as guided tissue regeneration (GTR) and access flap surgery are widely employed for the treatment of intrabony defects. However, little is known regarding the postoperative expression of gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) markers.

Objective

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the expression of GCF markers following treatment of periodontal intrabony defects with guided tissue regeneration or access surgery. The association of the markers’ expression with the clinical outcome was also assessed.

Methods

An electronic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, OpenGrey, LILACS and Cochrane Library up to December 2018 complemented by a manual search. Human, prospective clinical studies were identified. The changes from baseline up to 30 days (early healing) and 3 months (late healing) were assessed.

Results

A total of 164 publications were identified and reviewed for eligibility. Of these, 10 publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The included studies evaluated 15 different GCF markers with a follow-up time between 21 and 360 days postoperatively. PDGF, VEGF and TIMP-1 changes were often investigated in the included studies; however, contrasting results were reported. Two studies agreed that both GTR and OFD lead to similar OPG level changes. TGF-β1 is increased early postoperatively, irrespective of the surgical technique employed.

Conclusion

There is limited evidence available on the expression of GCF markers after surgical interventions of intrabony periodontal defects. However, OPG and TGF-β1 tend to increase early post-operatively, irrespective of the surgical technique employed, irrespective of the surgical technique employed.

Clinical relevance

More well-designed, powered studies with sampling periods reflecting the regenerative process are needed, and future research should focus on employing standardised protocols for collecting, storing and analysing GCF markers.

Keywords

Gingival crevicular fluid Markers Guided tissue regeneration Open flap debridement 

Introduction

Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory disease caused by bacterial biofilm that leads to a progressive destruction of the supporting apparatus of a tooth and eventually to tooth loss. The prevalence of periodontitis, according to the 2009–2010 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), reaches 46% in US adults [1].

As periodontal disease progresses, it results in bone loss that can be horizontal or vertical or a combination of both. The loss of supporting bone vertically results in the formation of intrabony defects that progressively worsen and are associated with an increased probability of tooth loss [2]. While non-surgical periodontal therapy is effective in improving the clinical parameters, such as probing pocket depth (PPD) and clinical attachment levels (CAL) [3], surgical approaches are more effective—in particular for PPD of more than 6 mm [4, 5]. Currently, intrabony defects are identified as sites favourable for periodontal regeneration [6, 7] with the most commonly used techniques being guided tissue regeneration (GTR) and enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) presenting with similar clinical outcomes which are superior to open flap debridement (OFD) and osseous surgery (OS) [8, 9, 10, 11].

However, irrespective of the regenerative modality employed for the treatment of intrabony defects, little is known regarding the processes and sequences involved in the periodontal regeneration and consequently, in the postoperative expression of angiogenesis, regeneration and inflammation markers in the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) that accompany these processes [12]. The expression of such markers postoperatively may define whether the healing process moves towards a regenerative or a reparative direction [12]. Understanding the cellular and biological events in periodontal wound healing can possibly provide useful information in identifying predictable regenerative treatment for the periodontium.

The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the healing patterns of intrabony defects after surgical interventions (GTR, OS, OFD, EMD) by means of angiogenesis, regeneration and inflammation markers detected in the GCF before and early (≤ 30 days) or late (3 months) after the surgical intervention. Furthermore, the association of the expression of the GCF markers with the clinical outcome was investigated.

Materials and methods

Protocol and Registration

The present systematic review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [13] (Supplemental Material 1) and was registered with PROSPERO under the ID number CRD42018115794.

PICO question

The PICO question (patient, intervention, comparison and outcome) formulated was: “In patients with periodontal intrabony defects, does the expression of GCF markers for angiogenesis, regeneration and inflammation differ when treated with GTR employing a membrane and/or bone graft and/or biologics (e.g. EMD) (test group(s)) compared with intrabony defects treated with access surgery [OFD or OS or apically positioned flap (APF)] (control group) early (≤ 30 days) and late (3 months) after the surgical intervention?”

Eligibility criteria

Types of studies

Human, prospective clinical studies assessing the expression of angiogenesis, regeneration and inflammation markers in the GCF were considered. Only studies with at least ten patients per group were included. No language restriction was set.

Population

Systemically healthy individuals with chronic periodontitis (CP) with at least one tooth with PPD ≥ 5 mm, CAL and evidence of radiographic bone loss or aggressive periodontitis [14, 15] or periodontitis stages III or IV [16] and contributing a minimum of 1 intrabony defect.

Intervention and comparison

Intrabony defects treated with GTR employing a membrane and/or bone graft and/or with biologics (e.g. Emdogain) (test group(s)) and intrabony defects treated with access flap surgery (OFD or OS or APF) (control group). No restriction related to the flap technique (minimally invasive or not) was applied to avoid omitting potentially relevant data. Intrabony defects treated with adjunct growth factors e.g. EMD were included in the test group(s).

Outcome measures

The primary outcome of this review was the change in the expression of angiogenesis, regeneration and inflammation markers in the GCF during early healing (from baseline up to 30 days) and during late healing (from baseline to at least 3 months postoperatively). Secondary outcomes considered were the association of the expression of GCF markers (early and/or late healing) with the clinical outcome, assessed with the use of surrogate measures such as PPD and/or CAL.

Information sources and electronic search

An electronic search was conducted by two independent reviewers (VK and GC) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS and OpenGrey for publications up to 10 December 2018. Combinations of controlled terms (MeSH and EMTREE) and keywords were utilised:

(“infrabony” or “intrabony” or “infra-bony” or “intra-bony” or “angular defect” or “periodontal defect”) and (“guided tissue regeneration” or “GTR” or “periodontal regeneration” or “periodontal surgery” or “open flap debridement” or “OFD” or “access surgery”) and (“gingival crevicular fluid” or “crevicular fluid” or “GCF” or “inflammatory marker” or “marker” or “growth factor” or “inflammatory mediator” or “biomarker”)

Additionally, a manual search of periodontology-related journals including Journal of Dental Research, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontal Research and the Journal of Periodontology was performed from 2015 to 2018. The list of references in the publications included in this review as well as the list of references in relevant reviews were screened for potential additional publications fulfilling the inclusion criteria.

Study selection

The search results were initially screened for relevancy by means of title, keywords and abstract, independently and in duplicate by two reviewers (VK, GC). Irrelevant records were excluded at this stage. Any conflict was resolved with discussion. At the second round of screening, the full text of the publications remaining after the first round was assessed for inclusion in this review against the eligibility criteria described previously. The level of agreement between the two reviewers was calculated using Kappa statistics.

Data collection process/data items

The characteristics of the included publications were extracted by two reviewers (VK, GC). Among the details extracted were study characteristics (authors, journal of publication, year, country), number of patients, their demographics and risk factors (age, gender, smoking), diagnosis, number of intrabony defects, history of non-surgical treatment of the sites and time elapsed, characteristics of the included defects, surgical procedure employed (GTR, OFD), biomaterials used in the test group(s), postoperative care protocol, exposure rate, follow-up period, expression levels of the GCF markers, clinical outcomes (PPD, CAL), details of the methodology employed for the GCF sampling, storage, processing and detection of the markers, information regarding the main study outcome and power calculation of the study. When data from the included studies were missing, the authors of the publication were contacted through email.

Risk of bias assessment

The risk of bias of the included publications was assessed by the two reviewers independently and in duplicate. For the RCTs included, the quality of the selected publications was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias [17]. The selected publications were assessed for seven domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of the participants and personnel, blinding of the outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, free of selective outcome reporting and other sources of bias. For each of the individual domains, studies were classified as low, unclear or high risk of bias. Observational studies were assessed using the MINORS tool [18]. Studies were assessed in 12 items including clarity of the aim, inclusion of consecutive patients, prospective data collection, appropriateness of end points, unbiased assessment of study end points, appropriateness of follow-up time, inclusion of loss to follow-up rate, prospective calculation of the study size, comparable control group, contemporary control groups, baseline equivalence of groups on several factors and adequate statistical analysis. Each study may receive 0–2 points for each item and the total score ranges from 0 to 24 points. Studies with fewer than 16 points are considered of low quality, while high-quality studies need to have a score of greater than or equal to 16.

Results

Study selection

The flowchart of the study selection and inclusion process is shown in Fig. 1. The initial search identified 68 MEDLINE, 110 EMBASE, 59 Cochrane database and 1 LILACS titles, with a total of 163 after duplicates’ removal. One additional title was identified through hand search for a total of 164 titles. Following the screening of titles and abstracts by the two reviewers, 10 articles qualified for full text screening and all 10 met the inclusion criteria. The kappa value for inter-reviewer agreement was 0.99 at first round and 1.00 at second round.
Fig. 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Study characteristics

The characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1. All 10 included articles were in English. The study samples ranged from 12 [19] to 29 [20] patients. Seven of the included studies were randomised controlled clinical trials [11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24] and the remaining 3 were prospective cohort studies [12, 25, 26].
Table 1

Characteristics of the included studies. (RCT: randomized controlled clinical trial, M male, F female, NR not reported, PI plaque index, FMPS full mouth plaque score, FMBS full mouth bleeding score, PD probing depth, PPD probing pocket depth, CAL clinical attachment level, BOP bleeding on probing, OFD open flap debridement, GTR guided tissue regeneration, EMD Emdogain, MIST minimally invasive surgical treatment, OH oral hygiene instruction, SRP scaling and root planing, BID two times a day, TID three times a day, d day, w week, CHX chlorhexidine, EGF epithelial growth factor, KGF keratinocyte growth factor, TGF-β1 transforming growth factor β1, PDGF platelet-derived growth factor, VEGF vascular endothelial growth factor, FGF fibroblast growth factor, MMP-1 matrix metalloproteinase-1, MMP-8 matrix metalloproteinase-8, TIMP-1 metallopeptidase inhibitor-1, Ang-1 angiopoietin-1, OPG osteoprotegerin, OCN osteocalcin, BMP-2 bone morphogenetic protein-2, BMP-7 bone morphogenetic protein-7, PAF platelet activating factor, sICAM-1 soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1, sLFA-3 lymphocyte function-associated antigen-3)

Investigator, year (country)

Study design

Primary unit of analysis

Number of patients completed (m/f), age (mean)

Number of defects

Non-surgical protocol

Characteristics of the defects

Type of procedure

Details of technique

Postoperative medication

GCF sampling, storage, analysis

GCF markers

GCF follow-up (days)

Clinical follow-up (days)

PD change from baseline to final follow-up

Membrane exposures

Agrali et al 2016 (Turkey)

RCT, parallel arm, not blinded

Defect

12 (6/6), 44.17

30

OH and SRP 8 weeks before surgery

PI < 1, full mouth BOP < 20%, PD ≥ 6 mm, radiographic depth ≥ 3 mm, variation of 1-, 2-, 3-walls included

EMD vs

EMD + autograft vs OFD

Sulcular incisions, full-thickness flap reflection buccal and lingual

Amoxicillin + potassium clavulanate 1000 mg BID/7d, naproxen sodium 550 mg BID/7 days, 0.12% CHX BID/4 weeks

Periopaper for unspecified time, storage–80 °C, ELISA

TGF-β1

Baseline, 7, 14, 30, 90, 180

180

For OFD: from 7.6 to 3.2 mm.

For EMD: from 8.3 to 3.3 mm.

For EMD + autograft: from 7.93 to 3.22 mm.

None reported

Ribeiro et al 2011 (Brazil)

RCT, parallel arm, blinded examiner

Patient

29 (NR), 47.10

29

OH and SRP 6 months before surgery

FMPS 16.91% for test and 15.79 for control, FMBS 11.99% for test and 9.33 for control, PD and CAL ≥ 5 mm, BOP(+), radiographic depth ≥ 4 mm and width ≥ 2 mm, number of walls NR

MIST + EMD vs MIST

Minimally invasive technique (MIST) (Cortellini 2007), 4 mg dexamethasone 1 h prior

Paracetamol every 6 h for 2 days, 0.12% CHX BID for 15 days

Periopaper for 30 sec, storage–20 °C, ELISA

TGF-β1

OPG

OCN

Baseline, 15, 90

90, 180

For MIST: from 7.12 to 3.57 mm.

For MIST + EMD: from 7.09 to 3.53 mm.

None reported

Kuru et al 2004 (UK)

Prospective cohort, examiner blinding NR

Defect

27 (10/16), 38.1

27

Initial periodontal therapy and reassessment

PI, FMPS, BOP, FMBS NR, PPD and lifetime cumulative attachment loss ≥ 5 mm, radiographic bone loss after initial periodontal therapy, number of walls NR

GTR vs OFD

For GTR: sulcular incisions, full-thickness flap reflection, PTFE membrane removed at 6w

For OFD: reverse bevel incisions, full-thickness flap reflection

0.2% CHX BID for 2 weeks

Pre-cut chromatography strips (Whatman 3MM) at crevice entrance for 2 min, storage–− 70 °C, ELISA, pooled samples

T GF-ELas

Baseline, 14, 28, 42, 49, 84, 182

180

For GTR: from 7.73 to 3.33 mm.

For OFD: from 7.20 to 3.90 mm.

None reported

Pellegrini et al 2017 (Italy, USA)

Prospective cohort, multi-centre, examiner blinding NR

Patient

25 (9/16), NR

25

Non surgical periodontal treatment 4–6 months before surgery

FMPS 5.5% for test and 6.2% for control, FMBS 3.4% for test and 3.8% for control, PPD > 5 mm, CAL ≥ 6 mm

OFD: ≤ 3 mm intrabony

GTR: > 3 mm intrabony, number of walls NR

GTR vs OFD

For GTR: simplified or modified papilla preservation, Ti-dPTFE membrane, removed at 5–6weeks

For OFD: modified Widman flap

Ibuprofen 600 mg pre-op and 6 h later and then if needed, 0.12% CHX TID for 3–4 weeks

Periopaper, 1 mm in crevice, until resistance for 30 sec, storage–20 °C, ELISA

T GF-ELas

E-cadherin, EGF,

VEGF,

FGF-2, MMP-1, TIMP-1, BMP-7, OPG

Baseline, 3 to 5, 7, 14, 21

180

For GTR: from 8.1 to 4.1 mm.

For OFD: from 5.6 to 2.9 mm.

No exposure

Gamal et al 2011 (Egypt)

RCT, split mouth, blinded examiner

Defect

12 (NR), 38.2

24

OH + SRP and re-evaluation at 4 weeks

PI 0.3 for test and 0.5 for control groups, matched 2-walled or 3-walled defects, PD > 6 mm, CAL > 4 mm, radiographic depth > 3 mm, premolars/molars

GTR vs OFD

Sulcular incisions, full-thickness flap reflection. For GTR, periosteum pedicle serving as membrane

Amoxicillin 500 mg TID/7d, 0.12% CHX TID/2 weeks

Micropipette, mesio-facial line angle to maximum depth 2 mm until 5 μm until 5te, mesio-fa− 26 °C, ELISA

PDGF-BB

2, 3, 7, 14, 30

90, 180, 270

For GTR: from 6.1 to 2.6 mm

For OFD: from 5.6 to 4.1 mm.

No exposure

Gamal et al 2016 (Egypt)

RCT, parallel arm, blinded examiner

Defect

29 (NR), 31.5

29

OH + SRP and re-evaluation at 4 weeks

PI 0.2 for test and control groups, single, 2-walled or 3-walled defect, PD ≥ 6 mm, CAL ≥ 5 mm, radiographic defect ≥ 3 mm, premolars/molars

GTR (occlusive) vs

GTR (perforated) vs OFD

Internal bevel incisions, full thickness flap reflections. Occlusive is the standard collagen membrane. The perforated membrane is subject to 1 mm perforations with a pin

Amoxicillin 500 mg

Micropipette, mesio-facialline angle to maximum depth 2 mm until 5 μl until 5 μl collected, storage -76 °C, ELISA

PDGF-BB

VEGF

1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 30

90, 180, 270

For GTR (occlusive): from 6.1 to 3.5 mm.

For GTR (perforated) from 6.8 to 2.3 mm.

For OFD: from 7.1 to 4.5 mm.

7 patients excluded due to postoperative exposures of the membranes

Keles et al 2006 (Turkey)

RCT, split mouth, blinded examiner

Defect

15 (6/9), 42.27

30

OH + SRP and re-evaluation at 4–6 weeks

PI 0.65 for test and 0.63 for control, paired, vertical interproximal osseous defects PD ≥ 6 mm, number of walls NR

GTR vs flap surgery

Sulcular incisions, full-thickness flap reflection, for GTR: absorbable polylactide membrane

None

Periopaper, in crevice until mild resistance for 30s, storage -70 °C, reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatography with fluorimetric detection

PAF

Baseline, 42, 84, 168

45, 90, 180

For GTR: 4.5 mm change from baseline to 6 m.

For flap surgery: 4.7 mm change from baseline to 6 m.

None reported

Kuru et al 2005 (UK)

Prospective cohort, examiner blinding NR

Analysis for defect and patient as unit of analysis

26, (11/24), 39.6

NR

Non surgical periodontal treatment prior

PI/FMPS and BOP/FMBS NR, PD > 5 mm, lifetime cumulative CAL > 5 mm, radiographic evidence bone loss after initial periodontal therapy, number of walls NR

GTR vs flap surgery

Details of surgical procedures NR, for GTR: ePTFE membrane removed at 6 weeks

None

Pre-cut chromatography strips (Whatman 3MM) at entrance of crevice for 2 min, storage –70 °C, ELISA, pooled samples

sICAM-1

LFA-3

Baseline, 14, 28, 42, 49, 84

NR

NR

None reported

Okuda et al 2001 (Japan)

RCT, split mouth, double-blind

Patient

16 (NR), NR

36 (18 + 18), 2 patients contributed with 2 pairs of defects each

OH + SRP, occlusal adjustment if needed and re-evaluation 6 weeks later

PI 0.28 for test and 0.39 for control, BOP 89% for test and 83% for control, bilateral, one- or two-paired defects, PPD ≥ 6 mm, CAL ≥ 6 mm, osseous defect depth ≥ 4 mm with sounding or radiographically, minimum 2 mm keratinised gingiva, number of walls NR

EMD vs OFD

Sulcular incisions, vertical release incision 1 tooth away, full thickness flap reflection

Cefaclor 750 mg/5 days, 0.12% CHX TID/6 weeks

Periopaper, inserted until resistance for 60 sec, storage -80 °C, ELISA and one-step sandwich enzyme immunoassay

MMP-1 MMP-8

TIMP-1

Baseline, 14, 28, 84

90

For EMD: from 6.33 to 3.61 mm.

For OFD: from 6.22 to 4.28 mm.

NR

Rakmanee et al 2018 (UK)

RCT, split mouth, blinded examiner

Patient

16 (NR), NR

32

OH + SRP and reassessment 6 weeks later

FMPS 21.4%, FMBS 24.2%, bilateral defects, PPD ≥ 5 mm, radiographic evidence of bone loss ≥ 3 mm, variation of 1-, 2-, 3-walls included

GTR vs access flap

Minimally invasive technique–simplified papilla preservation flap (Cortellini 1999)

Ibuprofen 600 mg or paracetamol 500 mg, 0.2% CHX BID/6 weeks

Pre-cut chromatography strips (Whatman 3MM) at crevice entrance for 2 min, storage -70 °C, Multiplex Beads Assay

Ang-1

VEGF

bFGF

BMP-2

OPG

TIMP-1

KGF

PDGF-AB

Baseline, 3-5, 7, 14, 28, 42, 84, 180, 360

180, 360

For GTR: 2.4 mm change from baseline to 12 m.

For access flap: 2.5 mm change from baseline to 12 m.

13/18 exposures: 2 major (> 4 mm), 2 removals, 2 minor required antibiotics (metronidazole 400 mg TID/2 weeks)

The characteristics of the included intrabony defects ranged from PD ≥ 5 mm [12, 20, 24, 25, 26] to PD ≥ 6 mm [11, 19, 21, 22, 23] and accompanying radiographic defect depth ≥ 3 mm [11, 12, 19, 21, 24], ≥ 4 mm [20, 23] or unspecified [22, 25, 26]. The defects included were variations of 1-, 2-, 3-wall defects [19, 24], only 2- or 3-wall defects [11, 21] or non-specified in the majority of the investigations [12, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26].

The types of procedures included in the test group were GTR [11, 12, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26] GTR with EMD [19, 23], and minimally invasive surgical technique (MIST) with EMD [20]. Non-resorbable membranes that were removed 6 weeks postoperatively were utilised in 3 studies [12, 25, 26].

Five of the included studies utilised Periopaper for the sampling of the GCF [12, 19, 20, 22, 23], 3 studies utilised pre-cut chromatography strips (Whatman 3MM) [24, 25, 26] and 2 studies utilised micropipettes [11, 21]. The GCF sampling time presented significant variation across studies, ranging from 30 s [12, 20, 22] to 1 min [23] and 2 min [24, 25, 26], while some studies allowed the insertion of the strip or the pipette until 5 μhe pipette until [11, 21] with one study not reporting on the sampling time [19]. Regarding the storage of the samples, great variation was also observed: 2 studies stored their GCF samples at − 80 °C [19, 23], 1 study at − 76 °C [21], 4 studies at − 70 °C [22, 24, 25, 26], 1 study at − 26 °C [11] and 2 studies at − 20 °C [12, 20]. Eight of the included studies analysed the GCF samples using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26], 1 study used reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorimetric detection [22] and 1 study used multiplex beads assay [24]. Several GCF markers were investigated in the included studies. For facilitating the reader, the GCF markers were categorised under factors related with the healing of the epithelium, the connective tissue, the bone and others, even if some overlap might exist (Table 2).
Table 2

Summary of the conclusions of the included studies. (CAL clinical attachment level, PD probing depth, PPD probing pocket depth, OFD open flap debridement, MIST minimally invasive surgical treatment, GTR guided tissue regeneration, vs versus, EGF epithelial growth factor, KGF keratinocyte growth factor, TGF- βG transforming growth factor β1, PDGF platelet-derived growth factor, VEGF vascular endothelial growth factor, FGF fibroblast growth factor, MMP-1 matrix metalloproteinase-1, MMP-8 matrix metalloproteinase-8, TIMP-1 metallopeptidase inhibitor-1, Ang-1 angiopoietin-1, OPG osteoprotegerin, OCN osteocalcin, BMP-2 bone morphogenetic protein-2, BMP-7 bone morphogenetic protein-7, PAF platelet activating factor, sICAM-1 soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1, sLFA-3 lymphocyte function-associated antigen-3)

The follow-up of the expression of GCF markers ranged from 21days [12] to 360 days [24], while the follow-up of the clinical parameters after treatment ranged from 90 [23] to 360 days [24]. However, there was rarely coincidence of the sampling times for the GCF markers with the clinical assessments postoperatively.

Finally, only 2 studies [21, 24] reported the postoperative occurrence of exposures. Gamal et al excluded the exposed sites from the study [21], while Rakmanee et al reported that 13 out of the 18 sites presented exposure of the membrane that was treated either with removal of the membrane (2 sites, classified as major exposure with size > 4 mm) or with administration of antibiotics (2 sites, classified as minor) [24].

Synthesis of results

The results and conclusions of the individual studies included are presented in Table 2. Due to the significant heterogeneity of the included studies, in relation to the methodology employed, a meta-analysis was not performed.

GTR

Regarding GTR, 7 studies reported on the expression of GCF markers postoperatively [11, 12, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26]. Both Gamal, 2011 [11] and Gamal 2016 [21] employed the same GCF sampling method using a micropipette inserted at 2mm depth in the sulcus and filled with 5μL of GCF. The samples were subsequently stored at -76C and analysed with ELISA. The concentrations of platelet-derived growth factor-BB (PDGF-BB) peaked during the early stages of healing (< 14 days) and decreased to baseline values by 30 days. Similarly, Rakmanee et al employing a different methodology, using pre-cut chromatography strips at the entrance of the gingival crevice for 2 min and stored at − 70C, found again increased PDGF-AB amounts 7 days postoperatively that decreased to baseline levels after 42 days [24]. Furthermore, Rakmanee et al found similar PDGF-AB levels both after GTR and after OFD that were accompanied by a similar clinical response. However, the sites subjected to GTR were associated with high rates of exposure (13/18) that may have significantly affected the regenerative process and thus the clinical response observed.

Furthermore, Rakmanee et al reported that GCF osteoprotegerin (OPG) amounts significantly increased 2–3 days postoperatively and subsequently declined [24]. No significant differences were noted between sites treated with GTR and sites treated with OFD. Pellegrini et al. using Periopaper inserted in the gingival crevice for 30 s found OPG levels to decrease following GTR and OFD; however, no comparison by treatment was reported for the change of the marker [12].

The expression levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) were investigated by Rakmanee et al. [24] and Gamal et al. [21]. The former did not detect any significant difference in the change of VEGF GCF levels between sites treated with GTR and sites treated with access surgery using pre-cut chromatography strips [24]. However, the study by Gamal and co-workers, which used micropipettes, found that VEGF concentrations measured statistically significant higher concentrations in defects treated with OFD and GTR using a perforated membrane during the early postoperative period (days 1, 3 and 7) compared to defects treated using the occlusive membrane [21].

Kuru et al. 2004, using pre-cut chromatography strips at the entrance of the gingival crevice for 2 min, found increased transforming growth factor βi (TGF-β1 levels 2 weeks postoperatively, that however were not statistically significant and declined to below baseline levels by 4 weeks [26]. The change in the TGF-β1 levels was similar both after GTR and after OFD and accompanied a similar clinical response 6 months postoperatively.

EMD

Regarding EMD, 3 studies reported on the expression of GCF markers [19, 20, 23]. Ribeiro et al., using Periopaper in the gingival crevice until resistance was felt and for 30 s, reported that TGF-β1 levels in sites treated with MIST and EMD significantly increased by 15 days postoperatively and the levels decreased after 3 months [20]. Furthermore, the changes for TGF-β1 levels were similar for sites treated with MIST and MIST with EMD and accompanied a similar clinical and radiographic response for both treatments. In contrast, Agrali et al. using Periopaper, inserted in the gingival crevice for unspecified amount of time, reported significantly higher TGF-β1 levels for EMD-treated defects compared with OFD-treated defects 7 and 14 days postoperatively [19]. In the same line, the authors concluded that defects treated with EMD presented a superior clinical and radiographic improvement compared with defects treated with OFD. It is however worth noting that the majority of the defects treated with EMD were localised at anterior teeth, compared with the majority of the sites treated with OFD that were localised at molar teeth.

Okuda et al. described an increase for matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8) and metallopeptidase inhibitor 1 (TIMP-1) GCF levels 2 weeks postoperatively for defects treated with EMD and OFD that thereafter declined, more dramatically for EMD-treated defects [23]. MMP-1 levels significantly decreased from 2 to 4 weeks postoperatively for defects treated with EMD [23].

Ribeiro et al. using Periopaper in the gingival crevice for 30 s concluded that OPG levels increase 15 days postoperatively and similar changes are noted after both MIST and MIST with EMD [20]. Interestingly, Rakmanee et al. concluded that the OPG amount significantly increased 2–3 days postoperatively and subsequently declined with no significant differences between sites treated with GTR and OFD [24]. Consequently, similar changes were noted for the OPG levels after MIST and MIST with EMD or after GTR and access flap. Furthermore, both studies reported similar clinical and radiographic improvements for both treatment groups [20, 24]; thus, the similar expression patterns in the levels of expression of OPG accompanied a similar clinical response, irrespective of the surgical technique employed.

GTR and EMD

Regarding the combination of GTR and EMD, Agrali et al. reported on the levels of TGF-β1. The combination-treated defects, similarly distributed to anterior and posterior teeth, presented similar changes in the TGF-β1 levels as the EMD-treated defects in the first 2 postoperative weeks [19]. The similar changes of TGF-β1 levels accompanied a similar clinical response for EMD and EMD with GTR, that was superior to OFD. However, as discussed previously the majority of the defects treated with OFD were localised in posterior teeth.

OFD

Finally, regarding OFD alone, there is agreement between two investigations that an increase in TGF-β1 levels is initially observed, accompanied by a return to baseline levels by 14 days [19, 26]. For PDGF, conflicting results are presented; Gamal and co-workers reported an initial increase and a decrease by 7 days postoperatively to below baseline levels [11]. In contrary, another investigation from the same group reported a decrease for the PDGF levels that continued until 30 days postoperatively [21]. Rakmanee et al. noted an increase in the PDGF amount after OFD that continued until 3 months postoperatively [24].

For the remaining markers and for more detail regarding the expression of the investigated GCF markers after the surgical treatments, the reader is referred to the detailed Table 2.

Risk of bias assessment

The risk of bias assessment is presented in Fig. 2 and Table 3. Seven of the included studies (RCTs) were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool [11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]. Four of the seven studies were of low risk of bias in all but one domain [11, 20, 22, 24], two were of low risk of bias in five domains [21, 24] and one [19] was of high risk of bias. The remaining three studies [12, 25, 26] were prospective cohort studies and were assessed using the MINORS tool. These studies were rated with 16 to 18, indicating high quality of the included studies.
Fig. 2

Risk of bias assessment of RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration tool

Table 3

Risk of bias assessment of observational studies using the MINORS tool. Studies were assessed in 12 items and can receive 0–2 points for each for a total score ranging from 0 to 24 points. Studies with fewer than 16 points are considered of low quality while high quality studies need to have a score of greater than or equal to 16

Minors tool

Kuru L, J Periodontol. 2005

Kuru L, J Clin Periodontol. 2004

Pellegrini, J Periodont Res 2017

A clearly stated aim

2

2

2

Inclusion of consecutive patients

0

0

0

Prospective collection of data

2

2

2

End points appropriate to the aim of the study

2

2

2

Unbiased assessment of the study end point

0

0

0

Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study

2

2

2

Loss to follow-up < 5%

2

2

1

Prospective calculation of the study size

0

0

0

An adequate control group

2

2

2

Contemporary groups

2

2

2

Baseline equivalence of groups

0

2

1

Adequate statistical analyses

2

2

2

Total

16

18

16

Discussion

This systematic review identified 15 GCF markers expressed after surgical treatment of intrabony defects (GTR, OS, OFD). For 7 of those, most of which are related with the healing of connective tissue, TGF-β1, PDGF, VEGF, FGF, MMP-1, TIMP-1 and OPG, data was available from more than one investigation. While for the majority of factors a definitive conclusion cannot be reached, robust suggestions can be drawn regarding the OPG levels in regenerative surgeries. In two investigations, employing different GCF sampling and storing techniques, the OPG levels after MIST or MIST with EMD and after GTR or access flap similarly increased within the two postoperative weeks and thereafter declined [20, 24]. Furthermore, both studies reported similar clinical and radiographic improvements; thus, the similar expression patterns of OPG likely accompanied a similar clinical response. OPG acts as a soluble decoy receptor, binding to the receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B (RANKL) and inhibiting the osteoclastogenic action [27]. Therefore, OPG has been identified as a critical factor in bone formation and the regulation of bone resorption.

The finding of this review however comes in contrast with a human polymerase chain reaction (PCR) study assessing the gene modulation 21 days following treatment of intrabony defects with either GTR with an expanded polytetrafluorethylene (ePTFE) membrane or flap surgery [28]. Among others, OPG mRNA levels were significantly higher in GTR sites, compared with access flap sites. Furthermore, in an investigation of the gene expression profile of cells derived from GTR subjected defects (regenerating-tissue derived cells–RTCs), a differential and highlighted expression of the gene encoding OPG (TNFRSF11B) was found compared with matched periodontal ligament mesenchymal cells (PLCs) [29]. These contrasting results may be due to the high rate of exposures (13/18 GTR sites) in the study by Rakmanee et al. that may have significantly affected the regenerative process and thus the OPG expression [24]. In addition, the Ribeiro et al. investigation, as most of the included studies, was not powered for GCF and could therefore lack statistical power to detect differences in the expression levels between treatments [20].

Interestingly, Okuda et al. found that the use of EMD in intrabony defects resulted in an early postoperative increase for MMP-8 and TIMP-1, followed by an accelerated return to baseline levels, when compared to OFD [23]. This highlighted reduction may associate with an EMD-induced accelerated pattern of wound healing and resolution of inflammation moving towards regeneration rather than repair.

With respect to PDGF, three isoforms exist (AA, AB, BB). Two studies included in this review [11, 24] demonstrated that GTR and access flap lead to similar changes: an initial increase of PDGF-BB [11] and PDGF-AB [24] during the early healing period (up to 7 days), accompanied by a decrease to baseline levels. Two PDGF receptors exist, the PDGF-Rα and the PDGF-Rβ who binds PDGF-AB with low and PDGF-BB with high affinity [30]. In contrast with the included in this review studies, a significant upregulation of PDGF-Rβ in regenerating periodontal tissues has been observed [31] suggesting that the ligands are involved in the early cascade of events involved in regeneration.

Furthermore, in the only study powered for GCF markers [21], perforated PTFE membranes were shown to result in significantly higher VEGF during the early healing period (1, 3 and 7 days) when compared to occlusive membranes. In an animal model of GTR using porcine extracellular matrix (ECM), membrane cells recruited early postoperatively into the membrane compartment result in highlighted expression of, among other factors, VEGF at the RNA level. The VEGF expression was significantly highlighted 3 days postoperatively and thereby decreased by 28 days [32]. This VEGF upregulation, along with other regenerative molecules, early postoperatively in the mRNA and the protein level, may suggest that the membrane itself acts as a bioactive compartment guiding the regenerative process and not solely as an active barrier.

TGF-β1 is a connective tissue cell signalling protein that plays a critical role in several stages of wound healing, as it promotes the mitogenic activity of gingival and periodontal ligament cells and the upregulation of extracellular matrix components [33, 34]. With regards to TGF-β1, the existing literature is conflicting. The studies included in this review studies suggest that the clinical and radiographic outcome may be related to the TGF-β1 level changes [20, 26]. Ribeiro et al and Kuru et al showed that GTR or OFD and MIST or EMD treatments exhibited similar TGF- β1 increase early post-operatively, as well as similar clinical and radiographic improvements [20, 26]. However, the significant clinical and radiographic improvement following EMD in Agrali’s study was associated with a significant TGF- β1 increase for EMD at anterior teeth, in contrast with OFD at mainly posterior teeth [19]. When OFD was employed alone for the treatment of intrabony defects, two investigations agreed that an increase in TGF-β1 levels is initially observed, accompanied by a return to baseline levels by 14 days [19, 26]. In the same line, in an immunocytochemistry investigation in biopsies, a highlighted increase was noted for TGF-β1 receptor in regenerating periodontal tissues (6 weeks), while the receptor was almost undetectable in healthy tissues [31]. The highlighted receptor presence in regenerating tissues may suggest that the corresponding TGF-β1 plays a pivotal role in the early healing.

As it became evident, an important limitation was that only one of the ten included studies [21] was powered to detect significant differences in the GCF markers, whereas the remaining nine studies were either powered for the clinical outcomes or did not report any power calculation. Furthermore, inclusion of intrabony defects with varying number of defect walls does not allow for meaningful conclusions as regeneration is more likely to occur in 3-walled defects and to be accompanied by a different array of GCF markers compared to a 1-wall defect. In addition, reportedly, a large variation across investigations was observed in the methodology employed for the GCF sampling, storage and detection. These variations would introduce confounders if a meta-analysis was attempted. For example, the sampling methods (Periopaper, micropipette), the duration of collection (30 s, 2 min, until a specific volume is collected), the depth of strip insertion (entrance of the pocket or full depth), the storage (temperature) or the preparation of the samples (processing individual or pooled samples) introduce variations that would affect the conclusions drawn and their generalisability. Furthermore, it becomes imperative that more well-designed, powered studies with sampling periods reflecting the regenerative process are needed. Future investigations should employ standardised protocols for GCF sampling, processing and storage.

In conclusion:

There is limited evidence available on the expression of markers of angiogenesis, regeneration and inflammation in the GCF in the early and late healing after surgical interventions of intrabony periodontal defects

OPG is increased early postoperatively, irrespective of the surgical technique employed

A trend is noted for TGF-β1 increase early postoperatively, irrespective of the surgical technique employed. A highlighted increase is noted after use of EMD at anterior teeth that may relate with an improved clinical outcome.

More well-designed, powered studies with sampling periods reflecting the regenerative process are needed

Future research should focus on employing standardised protocols for collecting, storing and analysing GCF markers and establishing adequate statistical power to reach conclusions that may shed light in the biological events involved in the early periodontal wound healing and thus facilitate the development of predictable regenerative treatments

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Supplementary material

784_2019_3088_MOESM1_ESM.docx (85 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 85 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Eke PI, Dye BA, Wei L, Slade GD, Thornton-Evans GO, Borgnakke WS, Taylor GW, Page RC, Beck JD, Genco RJ (2015) Update on prevalence of periodontitis in adults in the United States: NHANES 2009 to 2012. J Periodontol 86(5):611–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Papapanou PN, Wennstrom JL (1991) The angular bony defect as indicator of further alveolar bone loss. J Clin Periodontol 18:317–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cobb CM (1996) Non-surgical pocket therapy: mechanical. Ann Periodontol 1:443–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Trombelli L, Heitz F, Needleman I, Moles D (2002) A systematic review of the effect of surgical debridement vs non-surgical debridement for the treatment of chronic periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 29(Suppl 3):92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graziani F, Karapetsa D, Mardas N, Leow N, Donos N (2018) Surgical treatment of the residual periodontal pocket. Periodontol 2000 76(1):150–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aichelmann-Reidy ME, Reynolds MA (2008 Mar) Predictability of clinical outcomes following regenerative therapy in intrabony defects. J Periodontol 79(3):387–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murphy KG, Gunsolley JC (2003) Guided tissue regeneration for the treatment of periodontal intrabony and furcation defects. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol 8(1):266–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Papanikolaou N, Coulthard P, Worthington HV (2009) Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain®) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7(4):CD003875Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koop R, Merheb J, Quirynen M (2012) Periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative in reconstructive periodontal therapy: a systematic review. J Periodontol 83(6):707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miron RJ, Sculean A, Cochran DL, Froum S, Zucchelli G, Nemcovsky C, Donos N, Lyngstadaas SP, Deschner J, Dard M, Stavropoulos A, Zhang Y, Trombelli L, Kasaj A, Shirakata Y, Cortellini P, Tonetti M, Rasperini G, Jepsen S, Bosshardt DD (2016) Twenty years of enamel matrix derivative: the past, the present and the future. J Clin Periodontol 43:668–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gamal AY, El-Shal OS, El-Aasara MM, Fakhry EM (2011) Platelet-derived growth factor-BB release profile in gingival crevicular fluid after use of marginal periosteal pedicle graft as an autogenous guided tissue membrane to treat localized intrabony defects. J Periodontol 82(2):272–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pellegrini G, Rasperini G, Pagni G, Giannobile WV, Milani S, Musto F, Dellavia C (2017) Local wound healing biomarkers for real-time assessment of periodontal regeneration: pilot study. J Periodontal Res 52:388–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):1006–1012.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lang N, Bartold PM, Cullinan M et al (1999) Consensus report: aggressive periodontitis. Ann Periodontol 4:53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Armitage GC (1999) Development of a classification system for periodontal diseases and conditions. Ann Periodontol 4:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tonetti M, Greenwell H, Kornmann K (2018) Staging and grading of periodontitis: framework and proposal of a new classification and case definition. J Periodontol 89(Suppl1):S159–S172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomised studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73(9):712–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Agrali ÖB, Kuru BE, Yarat A, Kuru L (2016) Evaluation of gingival crevicular fluid transforming growth factor-β1 level after treatment of intrabony periodontal defects with enamel matrix derivatives and autogenous bone graft: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Niger J Clin Pract 19(4):535–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ribeiro FV, Casarin RC, Júnior FH, Sallum EA, Casati MZ (2011) The role of enamel matrix derivative protein in minimally invasive surgery in treating intrabony defects in single-rooted teeth: a randomised clinical trial. J Periodontol 82(4):522–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gamal AY, Abdel-Ghaffar KA, Iacono VJ (2016) Gingival crevicular fluid vascular endothelial cell growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor-BB release profile following the use of perforated barrier membranes during treatment of intrabony defects: a randomised clinical trial. J Periodontal Res 51(3):407–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keles GC, Cetinkaya BO, Isildak I, Koprulu H, Acikgoz G (2006) Levels of platelet activating factor in gingival crevice fluid following periodontal surgical therapy. J Periodontal Res 41(6):513–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Okuda K, Miyazaki A, Momose M, Murata M, Nomura T, Kubota T, Wolff LF, Yoshie H (2001) Levels of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 and matrix metalloproteinases-1 and -8 in gingival crevicular fluid following treatment with enamel matrix derivative (EMDOGAIN). J Periodontal Res 36(5):309–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rakmanee T, Calciolari E, Olsen I, Darbar U, Griffiths GS, Petrie A, Donos N (2018) Expression of growth mediators in the gingival crevicular fluid of patients with aggressive periodontitis undergoing periodontal surgery. Clin Oral Investig 23:3307–3318.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2752-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuru L, Kirby AC, Griffiths GS, Petrie A, Olsen I (2005) Changes in soluble adhesion molecules in gingival crevicular fluid following periodontal surgery. J Periodontol 76(4):526–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuru L, Griffiths GS, Petrie A, Olsen I (2004) Changes in transforming growth factor-beta1 in gingival crevicular fluid following periodontal surgery. J Clin Periodontol 31(7):527–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jin Q, Cirelli JA, Park CH, Sugai JV, Taba M Jr, Kosteunuik PJ, Giannobile WV (2007) RANKL inhibition through osteoprotegerin blocks bone loss in experimental periodontitis. J Periodontol 78(7):1300–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lima LL, Goncalves PF, Sallum EA, Casati MZ, Nociti FH Jr (2008) Guided tissue regeneration may modulate gene expression in periodontal intrabony defects; a human study. J Periodontal Res 43:459–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ivanovski S, LIchanska AM, D’Aniello E, Xiao Y, Waters MJ (2007) Gene expression profiling of cells involved in periodontal regeneration. Tissue Eng 13(2):393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Raines EW, Ross R (1990) Platelet-derived growth factor. In: Sporn AB, Roberts AB (eds) Polypeptide growth factors and their receptors. Springer, New York, pp 173–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parkar MH, Kuru L, Giouzeli M, Olsen I (2001) Expression of growth factor receptors in normal and regenerating human periodontal wells. Arch Oral Biol 46:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Turi A, Elgali I, Vazirisani F et al (2016) Guided bone regeneration is promoted by the molecular events in the membrane compartment. Biomaterials 84:167–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dennison DK, Vallone DR, Pinero GJ, Rittman B, Caffesse RG (1994) Differential effect of TGF-beta 1 and PDGF on proliferation of periodontal ligament cells and gingival fibroblasts. J Periodontol 65(7):641–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Matsuda N, Lin WL, Kumar NM, Cho MI, Genco RJ (1992) Mitogenic, chemotactic, and synthetic responses of rat periodontal ligament fibroblastic cells to polypeptide growth factors in vitro. J Periodontol 63(6):515–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Oral Immunobiology and Regenerative Medicine and Centre for Oral Clinical Research, Institute of DentistryQueen Mary University London (QMUL)LondonUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Oral Sciences Research Group, Health Research Institute Foundation of Santiago (FIDIS)Universidade de Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain

Personalised recommendations