Table of Contents

Practice Building
Roundtable
Continuing Education
Implants
Periodontics

Inside Dentistry

April 2011, Volume 7, Issue 4
Published by AEGIS Communications

Clinical Use of Emdogain for Regeneration of Periodontal Defects

A treatment option with capabilities to regenerate periodontal tissue.

By Donald S. Clem, DDS; and Nelson T. Yen, DDS, MS

The treatment aim of vertical periodontal defects is the regeneration of a true functional attachment. By definition, periodontal regeneration involves the reconstruction of three different tissue types: cementum, periodontal ligament, and bone.1 Therefore, true periodontal regeneration can only be shown through histological results. This means that the clinician must rely on radiographic bone fill and gains in clinical attachment levels as well as probing depth reduction to evaluate the effectiveness of regenerative therapies.2 Therapeutic interventions should rely on the evidence-based approach.3 For a material or technique to be considered “regenerative,” it must show histologic evidence of periodontal regeneration, stand up to randomized controlled clinical trials, and have a body of literature in peer-reviewed scientific journals that demonstrate clinical as well as statistical significance.

The use of Straumann® Emdogain™ (Straumann, www.straumann.com) offers a treatment option with capabilities to regenerate periodontal tissue as shown in several pre-clinical, human histological case reports and randomly controlled clinical trials.4-8 To date, over 3,000 defects treated with Straumann Emdogain have been evaluated through more than 400 published clinical studies, demonstrating clinical effectiveness.

Successful Treatment of Vertical Defects

Decisions regarding which regenerative material or technique to use normally focus on the size and shape of the defect. A clinical decision tree for the treatment of periodontal intraosseous defects has been published by Froum et al.9 This tree (Figure 1) recommends that Emdogain should be used in periodontal osseous defects to promote the regeneration of the tissues in the periodontium. The addition of other materials is based on defect dimensions and the need to have additional support during the healing period.

Application of Clinical Concepts

In practical application, as general rule in the authors' practice, they primarily use Straumann Emdogain for the treatment of intrabony defects. Depending on the size and morphology of the defect, they will then add a bone graft material, such as demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA), as needed.

For example, it is very important to select defects that lend themselves to flap support when Straumann Emdogain is employed as a monotherapy. More extensive, complex defects frequently require the addition of a bone graft material for flap support.9-13

Clinical Case Reports

Initial Situation

Two patients were referred to the authors' practice by their general dentists, both due to demonstrated clinical evidence of attachment loss with increased probing depth. The authors believe it is important that restorative dentists and periodontists work together in a team approach for optimal patient outcomes. Vertical lesions have a much higher risk of continued attachment loss and regenerative interventions should be considered early in their diagnosis. The periapical radiographs presented two different situations. The first patient, a 46-year-old woman, presented with what appeared to be a deep, well-contained defect on the distal aspect of the left mandibular first molar, probing at 10+ mm (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). The radiographs of the second patient, a 51-year-old woman, confirmed the presence of a deep vertical defect on the distal aspect of the right mandibular first molar (Figure 5). The lesion of the second patient showed an 8-mm defect along the distal aspect of the first molar extending past the distal-facial line angle (Figure 6). As the authors would not know until they entered the sites what materials might be necessary, patients are often presented with the possibility of the various materials that might be needed in order to ensure the success of treatment.

The goal of both treatments was not only to decrease the clinical probing depth, but to also gain clinical attachment and realize a gain in bone. Ultimately, the authors wanted to minimize the vertical component of the defect as much as possible. In addition, regenerative therapy has the unique advantage of preserving crestal bone height and soft tissue contours for improved esthetics over resective approaches.

In consideration of the goal of periodontal regeneration for this lesion, there are only a limited number of materials and techniques known to result in human histological evidence of regeneration. This means that evidence of new cementum, new alveolar bone, and new periodontal ligament must be demonstrated. Two such materials are demineralized bone allograft and Straumann Emdogain. Depending on the lesion, these materials used either alone or in combination have demonstrated both histological evidence of regeneration and clinical effectiveness through peer-reviewed scientific literature.14-18

Surgical Approach

From the standpoint of technique, the authors prefer sulcular incisions to allow for conservation of as much tissue as possible. After reflection of full-thickness facial and lingual flaps, extensive root preparation was done. While ultrasonics and hand instruments were used, their effectiveness and ease of access to the lesion are limited and can become compromised when dealing with deep lesions like this. Because of this, the authors often employ the use of high-speed finishing burs and diamonds to facilitate easier and more complete root preparation. The use of a 24% EDTA solution (Straumann® PrefGel®) to the prepared root surface for 2 minutes completed this process. After thorough rinsing of the site with sterile saline, the authors packed the defect with saline-soaked gauze to control bleeding.

At this point in the procedure, the authors make a final decision on which material or combination of materials or techniques will be employed. Because the primary goal is periodontal regeneration with predictable results, Straumann® Emdogain is the authors' treatment of choice and was used in both cases. For the first patient, the authors decided to use Emdogain as a monotherapy due to the depth and morphology of the defect. They were able to get excellent flap support with the existing bony walls and, therefore, did not need any additional materials.However, in the second case, as the lesion wrapped around the facial (Figure 6), a bone graft substitute (DFDBA from LifeNet Health®, now available directly from Straumann) was also packed in the site after the application of Straumann Emdogain for flap support prior to flap closure. The first application was with Emdogain to saturate the root surface to initiate the regenerative process. Evidence suggests that enamel matrix proteins, a constituent of Emdogain, function not only to stimulate cell proliferation, but also function as signaling proteins in selecting cells to differentiate into cementoblasts.19,20 This is an essential step in periodontal regeneration. After this initial application, the authors then packed DFDBA that had been hydrated with sterile saline directly into the defect. Emdogain in combination with bone grafts has been shown to be osteopromotive.21-24 Closure was completed with a non-braided, non-absorbable continuous suture.

For all regenerative cases, the sutures are left in place for 2 weeks to maximize wound stabilization, as seen in Figure 7. During that time there was no periodontal dressing used. The patient was instructed in the use of a chlorhexidine swab twice daily. The authors also place these patients on an antibiotic (usually doxycycline) for the first 10-day postoperative period. Thereafter, the patient is seen at 2-week intervals over the next 8 weeks for plaque control and postoperative follow-up.

The authors gently probe the site at a final postoperative visit at 8 weeks and then place the patient on periodontal maintenance every 3 months. They generally do not take a radiograph of the site until 6 to 9 months post-regenerative treatment. Since the healing of intraosseous defects in regeneration involves disparate tissue types, bone is the last tissue to be formed in a mature enough state to be evaluated radiographically. It is well established that increases in bone volume and density continue for some time (some authors report 3 years) after regenerative therapy.4,25 While the authors generally alternate maintenance visits with the referring dentist for patients who are comparatively low risk, regenerative patients are seen in our office exclusively for the first 6 months after surgery. This is because the regenerative site(s) is managed with a strict treatment and monitoring protocol using modified ultrasonics, focused plaque control instructions and, in more severe cases, long-term anti-inflammatory medications. The authors believe that it is important that the periodontist direct the postoperative management for this critical 6-month period. After this first 6-month period, the patient is usually returned to an alternating schedule with a shared responsibility between the general dentist and periodontist.

Clinical Results

Patient 1

The clinical results demonstrate a 7-mm gain in clinical attachment with minimal probing depth (Figure 8). The radiograph demonstrates favorable bone response with increased fill and density, which is an indicator of an excellent regenerative response (Figure 9). This region was now amenable to long-term maintenance care. True periodontal regeneration can only be shown with a notch placed at the apical extent of calculus and histologic evaluation showing new bone, new cementum, and periodontal ligament. Bone fill and attachment level gains are the primary evaluation points for clinicians to assess the effectiveness of therapy.

Patient 2

Similarly, the clinical results demonstrate a 5-mm gain in clinical attachment with minimal probing depth (Figure 10). The radiograph demonstrates favorable bone response with increased fill and density, which is an indicator of an excellent regenerative response (Figure 11). This region is now amenable to long-term maintenance care.

Conclusion

Periodontal regeneration in the treatment of periodontal diseases is preferable to both patients and clinicians, because there is the opportunity to restore lost hard and soft tissues as well as decrease probing depths. With these goals in mind, the authors have found that Straumann® Emdogain, either alone or in combination with a bone grafting material, can provide safe, effective, and predictable results in their practice. Clearly, the decreased probing depths will allow for easier and more effective maintenance care while preserving function and esthetics. In most cases, the authors prefer to avoid presurgical root planing when considering periodontal regenerative options, and move directly into the reconstructive phase after a plaque-control program with the patient. The more soft tissue remaining at or above the cemento-enamel junction, the more soft tissue will be available for covering the wound. It is long been accepted that a significant amount of probing depth reduction with root planing occurs as a result of recession. Therefore, the rationale for moving to a regenerative approach early in the diagnosis is supported by: 1.) The behavior of intraosseous defects that demonstrate little to no bone regeneration after simple root planing; 2.) Root planing frequently results in recession, which can be both an esthetic complication and may make regenerative procedures more difficult due to lack of soft tissue.26-28

It is important that periodontists and referring dentists establish protocols for identifying these patients at high risk who may benefit from advanced regenerative therapies early in their diagnosis. Restorative care will be more predictable, more easily maintained, and the patient will have been reconstructed with a new attachment apparatus that replicates the form and function of their original anatomic structures. That is what the team approach is all about—optimal clinical outcomes in the patient’s best interest. The authors are fortunate to work with a wonderful team of referring dentists and hygienists in this regard and would encourage their periodontal colleagues to actively engage their dental community to function as their resource in achieving these outcomes for the patients they serve.

References

1. Garrett S. Periodontal regeneration around natural teeth. Ann Periodontol. 1996;1(1):621-666.

2. Consensus report. Periodontal regeneration around natural teeth. Ann Periodontol. 1996;1(1):667-670.

3. Newman MG, Caton JG, Gunsolley JC. The use of the evidence-based approach in a periodontal therapy contemporary science workshop. Ann Periodontol. 2003;8(1):1-11.

4. Heijl L, Heden G, Svärdström G, Ostgren A. Enamel matrix derivative (EMDOGAIN) in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects. J Clin Periodontol. 1997;24(9 Pt 2):705-714.

5. Froum SJ, Weinberg MA, Rosenberg E, Tarnow D. A comparative study utilizing open flap debridement with and without enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects: A 12-month re-entry study. J Periodontol. 2001;72(1):25-34.

6. Sculean A, Chiantella GC, Windisch P, Donos N. Clinical and histologic evaluation of human intrabony defects treated with an enamel matrix protein derivative (Emdogain). Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2000;20
(4):374-381.

7. Grusovin MG, Esposito M. The efficacy of enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) for the treatment of deep intrabony defects: a placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2009;2(1):43-54.

8. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Papanikolaou N, et al. Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain®) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;7(4):CD003875.

9. Froum S, Lemler J, Horowitz R, Davidson B. The use of enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of periodontal osseous defects: a clinical decision tree based on biologic principles of regeneration. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2001;21(5):437-449.

10. Cochran DL, Jones A, Heijl L, et al. Periodontal regeneration with a combination of enamel matrix proteins and autogenous bone grafting. J Periodontol. 2003;74(9):1269-1281.

11. Hoidal MJ, Grimard BA, Mills MP, et al. Clinical evaluation of demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft with and without enamel matrix derivative for the treatment of periodontal osseous defects in humans. J Periodontol. 2008;79(12):2273-2280.

12. Trombelli L, Farina R. Clinical outcomes with bioactive agents alone or in combination with grafting or guided tissue regeneration. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35(8 Suppl):117-135.

13. Yilmaz S, Cakar G, Yildirim B, Sculean A. Healing of two and three wall intrabony periodontal defects following treatment with an enamel matrix derivative combined with autogenous bone. J Clin Periodontol. 2010;37(6):544-550.

14. Bowers GM, Chadroff B, Carnevale R, et al. Histologic evaluation of new attachment apparatus in humans. Part III. J Periodontol. 1989;60(12):683-693.

15. Yukna RA, Mellonig JT. Histologic evaluation of periodontal healing in humans following regenerative therapy with enamel matrix derivative. A 10-case series. J Periodontol. 2000;71(5):752-759.

16. Giannobile WV, Somerman MJ. Growth and amelogenin-like factors in periodontal wound healing. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol. 2003;8(1):193-204.

17. Reynolds MA, Aichelmann-Reidy ME, Branch-Mays GL, Gunsolley JC. The efficacy of bone replacement grafts in the treatment of periodontal osseous defects. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol. 2003;8(1):227-265.

18. Saito A, Nanbu Y, Nagahata T, Yamada S. Treatment of intrabony periodontal defects with enamel matrix derivative in private practice: a long-term retrospective study. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2008;40(2):89-96.

19. Bosshardt DD. Biological mediators and periodontal regeneration: a review of enamel matrix proteins at the molecular and cellular levels. J Clin Periodontol. 2008:35 (8 Suppl):87-105.

20. Lyngstadaas SP, Wohlfahrt JC, Brookes SJ, et al. Enamel matrix proteins; old molecules for new applications. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2009;12(3):243-253.

21. Boyan BD, Weesner TC, Lohmann CH, et al. Porcine fetal enamel matrix derivative enhances bone formation induced by demineralized freeze dried bone allograft in vivo. J Periodontol. 2000;71(8):1278-1286.

22. Rathe F, Junker R, Chesnutt BM, Jansen JA. The effect of enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) on bone formation: a systematic review. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2009;15(3): 215-224.

23. Messenger MP, Raïf el M, Seedhom BB, Brookes SJ. Enamel matrix derivative enhances tissue formation around scaffolds used for tissue engineering of ligaments. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2010;4(2):96-104.

24. Aspriello SD, Ferrante L, Rubini C, Piemontese M. Comparative study of DFDBA in combination with enamel matrix derivative versus DFDBA alone for treatment of periodontal intrabony defects at 12 months post-surgery. Clin Oral Investig. 2010 Jan 7.

25. Heden G, Wennström JL. Five-year follow-up of regenerative periodontal therapy with enamel matrix derivative at sites with angular bone defects. J Perio. 2006;77(2):295-301.

26. Renvert S, Nilvéus R, Egelberg J. Healing after treatment of periodontal intraosseous defects. V. Effect of root planing versus flap surgery. J Clin Perio. 1985;12(8):619-629.

27. Nevins M, Mellonig JT. Periodontal Therapy: Clinical Approaches and Evidence of Success. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing; 1998.

28. Sculean A, Chiantella GC, Arweiler NB, et al. Five-year clinical and histologic results following treatment of human intrabony defects with an enamel matrix derivative combined with a natural bone mineral. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008;28(2):153-161.

About the Authors

Donald S. Clem, DDS
Private Practice
Fullerton, California

Nelson T. Yen, DDS, MS
Private Practice
Fullerton, California