Outcomes of regenerative treatment with rhPDGF-BB and rhFGF-2 for periodontal intra-bony defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background The aim was to evaluate the effects of recombinant human platelet‐derived growth factor‐BB (rhPDGF‐BB) and recombinant human fibroblast growth factor‐2 (rhFGF‐2) on treating periodontal intra‐bony defects, compared to the control (carrier alone). Methods Electronic and hand searches were...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical periodontology 2015-03, Vol.42 (3), p.272-280
Main Authors: Khoshkam, Vahid, Chan, Hsun-Liang, Lin, Guo-Hao, Mailoa, James, Giannobile, William V., Wang, Hom-Lay, Oh, Tae-Ju
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Alveolar Bone Loss - surgery
bioengineering
Bone Regeneration - drug effects
Clinical outcomes
Dentistry
Fibroblast Growth Factor 2 - therapeutic use
Gingival Recession - surgery
Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods
Gum disease
Humans
Meta-analysis
oral reconstruction and wound healing
Periodontal Attachment Loss - surgery
Periodontal Pocket - surgery
Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-sis - therapeutic use
regenerative medicine
repair
Systematic review
tissue engineering
Treatment Outcome
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background The aim was to evaluate the effects of recombinant human platelet‐derived growth factor‐BB (rhPDGF‐BB) and recombinant human fibroblast growth factor‐2 (rhFGF‐2) on treating periodontal intra‐bony defects, compared to the control (carrier alone). Methods Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify eligible studies. The weighed mean differences of linear defect fill (LDF), probing depth (PD) reduction, clinical attachment level (CAL) gain and gingival recession (GR) were calculated using random effect meta‐analysis. Results The searches yielded 1018 articles, of which seven studies were included. Only one included study was considered at low risk of bias. The outcomes that reached statistical significance in comparison to carriers alone included: LDF (0.95 mm, 95% CI: 0.62–1.28 mm or 20.17%, 95% CI: 11.81–28.54%) and CAL gain (0.34 mm, 95% CI: 0.03–0.65 mm) for PDGF, and LDF (21.22%, 95% CI: 5.82–36.61%) for FGF‐2. Conclusions Within the limits of this review, rhPDGF‐BB demonstrated significantly more LDF and CAL gain; rhFGF‐2 resulted in significantly higher percentage of LDF.
ISSN:0303-6979
1600-051X
DOI:10.1111/jcpe.12354