Murphy Kevin G, Gunsolley John C
Department of Periodontics, College of Dental Surgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA.
Ann Periodontol. 2003 Dec;8(1):266-302. doi: 10.1902/annals.2003.8.1.266.
Many clinical studies have demonstrated that guided tissue regeneration (GTR) is a successful treatment modality of periodontal reconstructive surgery and it has become an accepted procedure in most periodontal practices.
The purpose of this structured review was to assess the efficacy of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedures in patients with periodontal osseous defects compared with surgical controls on clinical, radiographic, adverse, and patient-centered outcomes. It extends the scope of previous GTR systematic reviews, which were limited to randomized controlled studies, by the scope of outcome measures examined, and the duration of the study.
In patients with periodontal osseous defects, what is the effect of physical barriers compared with surgical controls on clinical, radiographic, adverse, and patient-centered outcomes?
An electronic search of the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register and MEDLINE databases was performed. Manual searching of journals included Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontology, and Journal of Periodontal Research up to January 2002. This manual search also included review of relevant bibliographies. Two manufacturers of GTR devices were contacted regarding unpublished data.
Studies were selected for review if the evidence level was 3B (cohort) or above, at least 6 months duration, and compared a test GTR intervention with a surgical control.
Studies with experimental design problems; histologic or microbiological investigations; or those with outcome measurements, study populations, or study duration not consistent with the inclusion criteria were excluded. Primary outcome measures for intrabony defects were: clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, probing depth reduction (PD), gingival recession (REC) reduction; for furcation defects: vertical probing attachment level (VPAL) gain, vertical probing depth reduction (VPD), horizontal probing depth reduction (HPD), horizontal open probing attachment level gain (HOPA), and vertical open probing attachment level gain (VOPA). Meta-analysis was performed to compare GTR procedures to other surgical treatments and to examine the resulting clinical outcomes.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Overall, GTR is consistently more effective than OFD in the gain of clinical attachment and probing depth reduction in the treatment of intrabony and furcation defects.
许多临床研究表明,引导组织再生术(GTR)是牙周重建手术的一种成功治疗方式,并且已成为大多数牙周治疗中被认可的程序。
本系统评价的目的是评估与手术对照相比,引导组织再生术(GTR)程序在牙周骨缺损患者的临床、影像学、不良事件及以患者为中心的结局方面的疗效。它通过所检查的结局指标范围和研究持续时间,扩展了先前GTR系统评价的范围,先前的系统评价仅限于随机对照研究。
在牙周骨缺损患者中,与手术对照相比,物理屏障在临床、影像学、不良事件及以患者为中心的结局方面有何影响?
对Cochrane口腔健康组试验注册库和MEDLINE数据库进行了电子检索。手工检索了截至2002年1月的期刊,包括《临床牙周病学杂志》《牙周病学杂志》和《牙周病研究杂志》。该手工检索还包括对相关参考文献的查阅。就未发表的数据联系了两家GTR装置制造商。
如果证据水平为3B(队列研究)或以上、持续时间至少6个月,并且将试验性GTR干预与手术对照进行比较的研究,则选择纳入综述。
存在实验设计问题的研究;组织学或微生物学研究;或结局测量、研究人群或研究持续时间与纳入标准不一致的研究被排除。骨内缺损的主要结局指标为:临床附着水平(CAL)增加、探诊深度减少(PD)、牙龈退缩(REC)减少;根分叉缺损的指标为:垂直探诊附着水平(VPAL)增加、垂直探诊深度减少(VPD)、水平探诊深度减少(HPD)、水平开放探诊附着水平增加(HOPA)和垂直开放探诊附着水平增加(VOPA)。进行荟萃分析以比较GTR程序与其他手术治疗方法,并检查由此产生的临床结局。
总体而言,在治疗骨内缺损和根分叉缺损时,GTR在临床附着增加和探诊深度减少方面始终比OFD更有效。