Does enamel matrix derivative application provide additional clinical benefits in the treatment of maxillary Miller class I and II gingival recession? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical Oral Investigations (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

This review aimed to evaluate the effects of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in association with coronally advanced flap (CAF) or CAF + connective tissue graft (CTG) when compared with CAF alone or CAF + CTG for the treatment of gingival recessions (GR) in maxillary teeth.

Methods

Five databases and gray literature were searched up to April 2020, to find randomized clinical trials comparing the clinical effects of CAF + EMD versus CAF alone (first group) or CAF + CTG + EMD versus CAF + CTG (second group) in the treatment of Miller class I and II or Cairo type I gingival recessions (GR). Random effects model of mean differences was used to determine the GR reduction, gain in keratinized tissue width (KTW), and gain in clinical attachment level (CAL). The trial sequential analysis (TSA) was implemented to determine the optimal information size (OIS) and imprecision using the GRADE approach. Bayes factors were calculated as complementary statistical evidence of p value.

Results

From 1349 titles identified, 9 trials representing 336 GR were included. The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant difference for GR reduction and CAL gain in favor CAF + EMD (p ≤ 0.05). The additional effect of EMD showed a statistically significant difference in GR reduction in favor CAF + CTG + EMD (p ≤ 0.05). The differences in KTW gain proved to be not statistically significant in both comparison groups. The OIS were not met among meta-analyses. Evidence certainty according the GRADE approach proved to be moderate for GR reduction and gain in CAL, but very low for gain in KTW.

Conclusion

The adjunctive application of EMD in the treatment of GR in maxillary teeth either with CAF or CTG provided moderate certainty evidence in favor of their use for reduction in GR and gain in CAL at 6 and 12 months. However, their effect on the increase in keratinized tissue band height showed very low evidence certainty for its use.

Clinical relevance

To know if EMD could improve the results for root coverage.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. 1.

    Pini Prato G (1999) Mucogingival deformities. Ann Periodontol 4:98–101

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Jepsen S, Caton JG, Albandar JM, Bissada NF, Bouchard P, Cortellini P, Demirel K, de Sanctis M, Ercoli C, Fan J, Geurs NC, Hughes FJ, Jin L, Kantarci A, Lalla E, Madianos PN, Matthews D, McGuire MK, Mills MP, Preshaw PM, Reynolds MA, Sculean A, Susin C, West NX, Yamazaki K (2018) Periodontal manifestations of systemic diseases and developmental and acquired conditions: consensus report of workgroup 3 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Periodontol 89:S237–S248

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Rasperini G, Acunzo R, Pellegrini G, Pagni G, Tonetti M, Pini Prato GP, Cortellini P (2018) Predictor factors for long-term outcomes stability of coronally advanced flap with or without CTG in the treatment of single maxillary gingival recessions: 9 years. J Clin Periodontol 45:1107–1117

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Zucchelli G, Mounssif I (2015) Periodontal plastic surgery. Periodontol 2000 68:333–368

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Zucchelli G, Suárez-López del Amo F, Stefanini M et al (2018) Influence of tooth location on coronally advanced flap procedures for root coverage. J Periodontol 89:1428–1441

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Miller PD (1988) Regenerative and reconstructive periodontal plastic surgery. Mucogingival surgery. Dent Clin N Am 32:287–306

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Chambrone L, Pannuti CM, Tu Y-K, Chambrone LA (2012) Evidence-based periodontal plastic surgery. II. An individual data meta-analysis for evaluating factors in achieving complete root coverage. J Periodontol 83:477–490

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Chambrone L, Chambrone D, Pustiglioni FE, Chambrone LA, Lima LA (2008) Can subepithelial connective tissue grafts be considered the gold standard procedure in the treatment of Miller class I and II recession-type defects? J Dent 36:659–671

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Blanes RJ, Allen EP (1999) The bilateral pedicle flap-tunnel technique: a new approach to cover connective tissue grafts. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 19:471–479

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cohen DW, Ross SE (1968) The double papillae repositioned flap in periodontal therapy. J Periodontol 39:65–70

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Zucchelli G, Cesari C, Amore C, Montebugnoli L, de Sanctis M (2004) Laterally moved, coronally advanced flap: a modified surgical approach for isolated recession-type defects. J Periodontol 75:1734–1741

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Cairo F, Pagliaro U, Nieri M (2008) Treatment of gingival recession with coronally advanced flap procedures: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 35:136–162

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Tonetti MS, Cortellini P, Pellegrini G, Nieri M, Bonaccini D, Allegri M, Bouchard P, Cairo F, Conforti G, Fourmousis I, Graziani F, Guerrero A, Halben J, Malet J, Rasperini G, Topoll H, Wachtel H, Wallkamm B, Zabalegui I, Zuhr O (2018) Xenogenic collagen matrix or autologous connective tissue graft as adjunct to coronally advanced flaps for coverage of multiple adjacent gingival recession: randomized trial assessing non-inferiority in root coverage and superiority in oral health-related quality of life. J Clin Periodontol 45:78–88

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Keceli HG, Kamak G, Erdemir EO, Evginer MS, Dolgun A (2015) The adjunctive effect of platelet-rich fibrin to connective tissue graft in the treatment of buccal recession defects: results of a randomized, parallel-group controlled trial. J Periodontol 86:1221–1230

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Gholami GA, Saberi A, Kadkhodazadeh M, Amid R, Karami D (2013) Comparison of the clinical outcomes of connective tissue and acelular dermal matrix in combination with double papillary flap for root coverage: a 6-month trial. Dent Res J 10(4):506–513

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ahmedbeyli C, Dirikan Ipçi S, Cakar G, Yılmaz S, Chambrone L (2019) Coronally advanced flap and envelope type of flap plus acellular dermal matrix graft for the treatment of thin phenotype multiple recession defects. A randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 46:1024–1029

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Zucchelli G, De Sanctis M (2000) Treatment of multiple recession-type defects in patients with esthetic demands. J Periodontol 71:1506–1514

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Chambrone L, Tatakis DN (2015) Periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures: a systematic review from the AAP Regeneration Workshop. J Periodontol 86:S8–S51

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Aydinyurt HS, Tekin Y, Ertugrul AS (2019) The effect of enamel matrix derivatives on root coverage: a 12-month follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Braz Oral Res 33:4–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Roman A, Soancǎ A, Kasaj A, Stratul SI (2013) Subepithelial connective tissue graft with or without enamel matrix derivative for the treatment of Miller class I and II gingival recessions: a controlled randomized clinical trial. J Periodontal Res 48:563–572

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    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 43:668–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    McGuire MK, Scheyer ET, Schupbach P (2016) A prospective, case-controlled study evaluating the use of enamel matrix derivative on human buccal recession defects: a human histologic examination. J Periodontol 87:645–653

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    França-Grohmann IL, Sangiorgio JPM, Bueno MR, Casarin RCV, Silvério Ruiz KG, Nociti FH Jr, Casati MZ, Sallum EA (2020) Treatment of dehiscence-type defects with collagen matrix and/or enamel matrix derivative: histomorphometric study in minipigs. J Periodontol 91:967–974

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    McGuire MK, Cochran DL (2003) Evaluation of human recession defects treated with coronally advanced flaps and either enamel matrix derivative or connective tissue. Part 2: histological evaluation. J Periodontol 74:1126–1135

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Sculean A, Cosgarea R, Stähli A et al (2014) The modified coronally advanced tunnel combined with an enamel matrix derivative and subepithelial connective tissue graft for the treatment of isolated mandibular Miller class I and II gingival recessions: a report of 16 cases. Quintessence Int (Berl) 45:829–835

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Koop R, Merheb J, Quirynen M (2012) Periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative in reconstructive periodontal therapy: a systematic review. J Periodontol 83:707–720

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Rasperini G, Roccuzzo M, Francetti L, Acunzo R, Consonni D, Silvestri M (2011) Subepithelial connective tissue graft for treatment of gingival recessions with and without enamel matrix derivative: a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 31:133–139

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Cordaro L, Di Torresanto VM, Torsello F (2012) Split-mouth comparison of a coronally advanced flap with or without enamel matrix derivative for coverage of multiple gingival recession defects: 6- and 24-month follow-up. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 32:e10–e20

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 6:1006–10012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, Henry DA (2017) AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 358:j4008

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T et al (2007) Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 15:7–16

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Miller PD (1985) A classification of marginal tissue recession. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 5:8–13

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Cairo F, Nieri M, Cincinelli S, Mervelt J, Pagliaro U (2011) The interproximal clinical attachment level to classify gingival recessions and predict root coverage outcomes: an explorative and reliability study. J Clin Periodontol 38:661–666

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Greenhalgh T, Peacock R (2005) Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. Br Med J 331:1064–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ et al (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Inthout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF (2014) The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Langan D, Higgins JPT, Jackson D, Bowden J, Veroniki AA, Kontopantelis E, Viechtbauer W, Simmonds M (2019) A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods 10:83–98

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J 327:557–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L (2008) Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol 10:991–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP et al (2011) Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 22:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, GRADE Working Group (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J 336:924–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Castellini G, Bruschettini M, Gianola S et al (2018) Assessing imprecision in Cochrane systematic reviews: a comparison of GRADE and trial sequential analysis. Syst Rev 7:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Alkan E, Parlar A (2013) Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) or subepithelial connective tissue graft for the treatment of adjacent multiple gingival recessions: a pilot study. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 33:619–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Hägewald S, Spahr A, Rompola E, Haller B, Heijl L, Bernimoulin JP (2002) Comparative study of Emdogain® and coronally advanced flap technique in the treatment of human gingival recessions: a prospective controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 29:35–41

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    McGuire MK, Nunn M (2003) Evaluation of human recession defects treated with coronally advanced flaps and either enamel matrix derivative or connective tissue. Part 1: comparison of clinical parameters. J Periodontol 74:1110–1125

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Cueva MA, Boltchi FE, Hallmon WW, Nunn ME, Rivera-Hidalgo F, Rees T (2004) A comparative study of coronally advanced flaps with and without the addition of enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of marginal tissue recession. J Periodontol 75:949–956

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Spahr A, Haegewald S, Tsoulfidou F, Rompola E, Heijl L, Bernimoulin JP, Ring C, Sander S, Haller B (2005) Coverage of Miller class I and II recession defects using enamel matrix proteins versus coronally advanced flap technique: a 2-year report. J Periodontol 76:1871–1880

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Pilloni A, Paolantonio M, Camargo PM (2006) Root coverage with a coronally positioned flap used in combination with enamel matrix derivative: 18-month clinical evaluation. J Periodontol 77:2031–2039

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Henriques PSG, Pelegrine AA, Nogueira AA, Borghi MM (2010) Application of subepithelial connective tissue graft with or without enamel matrix derivative for root coverage: a split-mouth randomized study. J Oral Sci 52:463–471

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Modica F, Del Pizzo M, Roccuzzo M, Romagnoli R (2000) Coronally advanced flap for the treatment of buccal gingival recessions with and without enamel matrix derivative. A split-mouth study. J Periodontol 71:1693–1698

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Del Pizzo M, Zucchelli G, Modica F et al (2005) Coronally advanced flap with or without enamel matrix derivative for root coverage: a 2-year study. J Clin Periodontol 32:1181–1187

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Castellanos TA, de la Rosa RM, de la Garza M, Caffesse RG (2006) Enamel matrix derivative and coronal flaps to cover marginal tissue recessions. J Periodontol 77:7–14

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Jaiswal GR, Kumar R, Khatri PM et al (2012) The effectiveness of enamel matrix protein (Emdogain®) in combination with coronally advanced flap in the treatment of multiple marginal tissue recession: a clinical study. J Indian Soc Periodontol 16:224–230

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Sangiorgio JPM, da Silva Neves FL, Rocha dos Santos M et al (2017) Xenogenous collagen matrix and/or enamel matrix derivative for treatment of localized gingival recessions: a randomized clinical trial. Part I: clinical outcomes. J Periodontol 88:1309–1318

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Cheng GL, Fu E, Tu YK, Shen EC, Chiu HC, Huang RY, Yuh DY, Chiang CY (2015) Root coverage by coronally advanced flap with connective tissue graft and/or enamel matrix derivative: a meta-analysis. J Periodontal Res 50:220–230

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Mercado F, Hamlet S, Ivanovski S (2020) A 3-year prospective clinical and patient-centered trial on subepithelial connective tissue graft with or without enamel matrix derivative in class I-II Miller recessions. J Periodontal Res 55:296–306

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Lang NP, Löe H (1972) The relationship between the width of keratinized gingiva and gingival health. J Periodontol 43:623–627

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Wennström J, Lindhe J, Nyman S (1981) Role of keratinized gingiva for gingival health: clinical and histologic study of normal and regenerated gingival tissue in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 8:311–328

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Discepoli N, Mirra R, Ferrari M (2019) Efficacy of enamel derivatives to improve keratinized tissue as adjunct to coverage of gingival recessions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials (Basel) 12:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Zucchelli G, Tavelli L, Barootchi S, Stefanini M, Rasperini G, Valles C, Nart J, Wang HL (2019) The influence of tooth location on the outcomes of multiple adjacent gingival recessions treated with coronally advanced flap: a multicenter re-analysis study. J Periodontol 90:1244–1251

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J (2008) Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 61:763–769

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Thorlund K, Imberger G, Walsh M, Chu R, Gluud C, Wetterslev J, Guyatt G, Devereaux PJ, Thabane L (2011) The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation of intervention effects in meta-analysis-a simulation study. PLoS One 6:e25491

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Imberger G, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J (2016) False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review. BMJ Open 6:e011890

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Periodontology, Dental Research Division, Guarulhos University, Guarulhos, SP, Brazil

    Jonathan Meza Mauricio, Camila Pinheiro Furquim, Willy Bustillos-Torrez, Belen Retamal-Valdes & Marcelo Faveri

  2. Stomatology Department, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    David Soto-Peñaloza & David Peñarrocha-Oltra

Authors
  1. Jonathan Meza Mauricio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Camila Pinheiro Furquim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Willy Bustillos-Torrez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Soto-Peñaloza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Peñarrocha-Oltra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Belen Retamal-Valdes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marcelo Faveri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Meza Mauricio.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 668 kb).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meza Mauricio, J., Furquim, C.P., Bustillos-Torrez, W. et al. Does enamel matrix derivative application provide additional clinical benefits in the treatment of maxillary Miller class I and II gingival recession? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Invest (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03782-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Connective tissue graft
  • Enamel matrix derivative
  • Gingival recession
  • Meta-analyses