Treatment of Class II Molar Furcation Involvement: Meta‐Analyses of Reentry Results

• Published in: Journal of periodontology (1970) 2011-03, Vol.82 (3), p.413-428
• Main Authors: Kinaia, Bassam Michael, Steiger, Jacob, Neely, Anthony L., Shah, Maanas, Bhola, Monish
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Absorbable Implants; Alveolar Bone Loss - surgery; Barrier; Biological and medical sciences; Bone Regeneration; Bone Substitutes; Cardiac dysrhythmias; Cardiology. Vascular system; Dentistry; Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology; furcation defects; Furcation Defects - classification; Furcation Defects - surgery; guided tissue regeneration; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods; Heart; Humans; Medical sciences; Membranes, Artificial; meta‐analysis; molar; Molar - pathology; Non tumoral diseases; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; review
• ISSN: 0022-3492; 1943-3670
• DOI: 10.1902/jop.2010.100306

Background: Predictable regeneration of lost periodontal tissues in furcations is difficult to achieve. This paper investigates the efficacy of different treatment modalities for Class II molar furcations. Methods: Publications in English were searched using PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases combined with hand searching from January 1, 1966 to October 1, 2007. The search included randomized controlled human trials in molar Class II furcations with over 6 months of surgical reentry follow‐up. Changes in vertical probing depths, vertical attachment levels, and vertical and horizontal bone levels were compared. Results: The search identified 801 articles of which 34 of 108 randomized clinical trials met the criteria. Thirteen trials had test and control arms allowing three meta‐analyses: 1) five comparing non‐resorbable versus resorbable membranes, 2) five comparing non‐resorbable membranes versus open flap debridement and 3) three comparing resorbable membranes versus open flap debridement. There was significant improvement for resorbable versus non‐resorbable membranes mainly in vertical bone fill (0.77 ± 0.33 mm; [95% CI; 0.13, 1.41]). Non‐resorbable membranes showed significant improvement in vertical probing reduction (0.75 ± 0.31 mm; [95% CI; 0.14, 1.35]), attachment gain (1.41 ± 0.46 mm; [95% CI; 0.50, 2.31]), horizontal bone fill (1.16 ± 0.29 mm; [95% CI; 0.59, 1.73]), and vertical bone fill (0.58 ± 0.11 mm; [95% CI; 0.35, 0.80]) over open flap debridement. Resorbable membranes showed significant improvement in vertical probing reduction (0.73 ± 0.16 mm; [95% CI; 0.42, 1.05]), attachment gain (0.88 ± 0.16 mm; [95% CI; 0.55, 1.20]), horizontal bone fill (0.98 ± 0.12 mm; [95% CI; 0.74, 1.21]) and vertical bone fill (0.78 ± 0.19 mm; [95% CI; 0.42, 1.15]) over open flap debridement. Conclusions: Guided tissue regeneration with the use of resorbable membranes was superior to non‐resorbable membranes in vertical bone fill. Both types of membranes were more effective than open flap debridement in reducing vertical probing depths and gaining vertical attachment levels and in gaining vertical and horizontal bone.