Intra-marrow penetrations and root coverage outcomes: a systematic review
Abstract Background Intra-marrow penetrations (IMPs) have been performed during guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedures with reported clinical benefits. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the use and effect of IMPs during root coverage procedures. Method A broad search for huma...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2023-05-01
|
| Series: | BMC Oral Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02964-6 |
| _version_ | 1797831904037175296 |
|---|---|
| author | Vrisiis Kofina Ying S. Wang Alissa Fial Dimitris N. Tatakis |
| author_facet | Vrisiis Kofina Ying S. Wang Alissa Fial Dimitris N. Tatakis |
| author_sort | Vrisiis Kofina |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Intra-marrow penetrations (IMPs) have been performed during guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedures with reported clinical benefits. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the use and effect of IMPs during root coverage procedures. Method A broad search for human and animal studies was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials and Web of Science, following a registered review protocol (PROSPERO). All prospective study designs, case series and case reports on gingival recession treatment (follow-up ≥ 6 months) that employed IMPs were included. Root coverage, complete root coverage prevalence, and adverse effects were recorded, and risk of bias was assessed. Results Of 16,181 screened titles, 5 articles (all of them human studies) met inclusion criteria. All studies (including two randomized clinical trials) treated Miller class I and II recession defects, using coronally advanced flap with IMPs alone or in conjunction with GTR protocols. Therefore, all treated defects received IMPs and no studies compared protocols with and without IMPs. Outcomes were indirectly compared with existing root coverage literature. Mean root coverage was 2.7 mm and 68.5% at 6.8 months (median: 6 months, range 6–15 months) for sites treated with IMPs. Conclusion IMPs are rarely used during root coverage procedures, have not been associated with intra-surgical or wound healing adverse effects and have not been investigated as independent factor. Future clinical studies are needed to directly compare treatment protocols with and without IMPs and investigate the potential benefits of IMPs for root coverage. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T13:59:13Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b12aafc6d5f54698a866c22549b24423 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1472-6831 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T13:59:13Z |
| publishDate | 2023-05-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Oral Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-b12aafc6d5f54698a866c22549b244232023-05-07T11:25:57ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312023-05-012311810.1186/s12903-023-02964-6Intra-marrow penetrations and root coverage outcomes: a systematic reviewVrisiis Kofina0Ying S. Wang1Alissa Fial2Dimitris N. Tatakis3Department of Surgical Sciences, School of Dentistry, Marquette UniversityDivision of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State UniversityRaynor Memorial Libraries, Marquette UniversityDivision of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State UniversityAbstract Background Intra-marrow penetrations (IMPs) have been performed during guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedures with reported clinical benefits. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the use and effect of IMPs during root coverage procedures. Method A broad search for human and animal studies was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials and Web of Science, following a registered review protocol (PROSPERO). All prospective study designs, case series and case reports on gingival recession treatment (follow-up ≥ 6 months) that employed IMPs were included. Root coverage, complete root coverage prevalence, and adverse effects were recorded, and risk of bias was assessed. Results Of 16,181 screened titles, 5 articles (all of them human studies) met inclusion criteria. All studies (including two randomized clinical trials) treated Miller class I and II recession defects, using coronally advanced flap with IMPs alone or in conjunction with GTR protocols. Therefore, all treated defects received IMPs and no studies compared protocols with and without IMPs. Outcomes were indirectly compared with existing root coverage literature. Mean root coverage was 2.7 mm and 68.5% at 6.8 months (median: 6 months, range 6–15 months) for sites treated with IMPs. Conclusion IMPs are rarely used during root coverage procedures, have not been associated with intra-surgical or wound healing adverse effects and have not been investigated as independent factor. Future clinical studies are needed to directly compare treatment protocols with and without IMPs and investigate the potential benefits of IMPs for root coverage.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02964-6Systematic reviewGingival recessionBone marrow/*surgeryOsteotomySurgical flaps |
| spellingShingle | Vrisiis Kofina Ying S. Wang Alissa Fial Dimitris N. Tatakis Intra-marrow penetrations and root coverage outcomes: a systematic review BMC Oral Health Systematic review Gingival recession Bone marrow/*surgery Osteotomy Surgical flaps |
| title | Intra-marrow penetrations and root coverage outcomes: a systematic review |
| title_full | Intra-marrow penetrations and root coverage outcomes: a systematic review |
| title_fullStr | Intra-marrow penetrations and root coverage outcomes: a systematic review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Intra-marrow penetrations and root coverage outcomes: a systematic review |
| title_short | Intra-marrow penetrations and root coverage outcomes: a systematic review |
| title_sort | intra marrow penetrations and root coverage outcomes a systematic review |
| topic | Systematic review Gingival recession Bone marrow/*surgery Osteotomy Surgical flaps |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02964-6 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT vrisiiskofina intramarrowpenetrationsandrootcoverageoutcomesasystematicreview AT yingswang intramarrowpenetrationsandrootcoverageoutcomesasystematicreview AT alissafial intramarrowpenetrationsandrootcoverageoutcomesasystematicreview AT dimitrisntatakis intramarrowpenetrationsandrootcoverageoutcomesasystematicreview |