Although there was a greater reduction in the number of sites with BOP following treatment with the Vector system than following instrumentation with carbon fiber curettes, there was no significant difference between the two methods.

Intrabony periodontal defects are a frequent complication of periodontitis and, if left untreated, may negatively affect long‐term tooth prognosis. The optimal outcome of treatment in intrabony defects is considered to be the absence of bleeding on probing, the presence of shallow pockets associated with periodontal regeneration (i.e. formation of new root cementum with functionally orientated inserting periodontal ligament fibers connected to new alveolar bone) and no soft‐tissue recession. A plethora of different surgical techniques, often including implantation of various types of bone graft and/or bone substitutes, root surface demineralization, guided tissue regeneration, growth and differentiation factors, enamel matrix proteins or various combinations thereof, have been employed to achieve periodontal regeneration. Despite positive observations in animal models and successful outcomes reported for many of the available regenerative techniques and materials in patients, including histologic reports, robust information on the degree to which reported clinical improvements reflect true periodontal regeneration does not exist. Thus, the aim of this review was to summarize, in a systematic manner, the available histologic evidence on the effect of reconstructive periodontal surgery using various types of biomaterials to enhance periodontal wound healing/regeneration in human intrabony defects. In addition, the inherent problems associated with performing human histologic studies and in interpreting the results, as well as certain ethical considerations, are discussed. The results of the present systematic review indicate that periodontal regeneration in human intrabony defects can be achieved to a variable extent using a range of methods and materials. Periodontal regeneration has been observed following the use of a variety of bone grafts and substitutes, guided tissue regeneration, biological factors and combinations thereof. Combination approaches appear to provide the best outcomes, whilst implantation of alloplastic material alone demonstrated limited, to no, periodontal regeneration.

This review article aims to: (1) provide the biological background necessary to understand the rational for the use of EMD for periodontal regeneration, (2) present animal and human histological evidence of periodontal regeneration following EMD application, (3) provide clinically relevant indications for the use of EMD and (4) discuss future avenues of research including key early findings leading to the development of Osteogain, a new carrier system for EMD specifically developed with better protein adsorption to bone grafting materials.

Therefore, the hypothesis of no differences between the use of Bio-Oss or Bio-Oss mixed with autogenous bone as graft for MSFA could neither be confirmed nor rejected.

Background: The recently published clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the treatment of periodontitis in stages I-III provided evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of periodontitis patients, defined according to the 2018 classification. Stage IV periodontitis shares the severity and complexity characteristics of stage III periodontitis, but includes the anatomical and functional sequelae of tooth and periodontal attachment loss (tooth flaring and drifting, bite collapse, etc.), which require additional interventions following completion of active periodontal therapy. Aim: To develop an S3 Level CPG for the treatment of stage IV periodontitis, focusing on the implementation of inter-disciplinary treatment approaches required to treat/rehabilitate patients following associated sequelae and tooth loss. Materials and Methods: This S3 Level CPG was developed by the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP), following methodological guidance from the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process. A rigorous and transparent process included synthesis of relevant research in 13 specifically commissioned systematic reviews, evaluation of the quality and strength of evidence, the formulation of specific recommendations and a structured consensus process with leading experts and a broad base of stakeholders. Results: The S3 Level CPG for the treatment of stage IV periodontitis culminated in recommendations for different interventions, including orthodontic tooth movement, EFP workshop participants and methodological consultant are listed in Appendix.