4.7 Article

Evaluation of Recombinant Human FGF-2 and PDGF-BB in Periodontal Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-00113-y

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [81470711, 81371136]
  2. Innovation Team of the Sichuan Province [2015TD0011]
  3. Program of International Science and Technology Cooperation [2014DFA31990]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The prognosis for successful treatment of periodontal diseases is generally poor. Current therapeutic strategies often fail to regenerate infected periodontium. Recently an alternative strategy has been developed that combines conventional treatment with the application of recombinant human growth factors (rhGFs). But ambiguities in existed studies on the clinical efficacy of rhGFs do not permit either the identification of the specific growth factors effective for therapeutic interventions or the optimal concentration of them. Neither is it known whether the same rhGF can stimulate regeneration of both soft tissue and bone, or whether different patient populations call for differential use of the growth factors. In order to explore these issues, a meta-analysis was carried out. Particular attention was given to the therapeutic impact of fibroblast growth factor 2(FGF-2) and platelet derived growth factor BB (PDGF-BB). Our findings indicate that 0.3% rhFGF-2 and 0.3 mg/ml rhPDGF-BB show a greater capacity for periodontal regeneration than other concentrations and superiority to control groups with statistical significance. In the case of patients suffering only from gingival recession, however, the application of rhPDGF-BB produces no significant regenerative advantage. The findings of this study can potentially endow clinicians with guidelines for the appropriate application of these two rhGFs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available