Beta Fulltext view is in preview — article structure may vary. Browse all articles
Contents
Open Access Journal of Dental Sciences Research Article 13 min read

Periodontal Tissue Regeneration: Fact or Fiction?

Pearl B* and Grover HS*
* Corresponding author
ISSN: 2573-8771  10.23880/oajds-16000126  Received: January 16, 2017  Published: February 22, 2017
 — views
 35 references
PDF
Keywords
Tissue Regeneration
Abstract

Periodontal diseases are one of the most primeval and frequent diseases that have plagued mankind. In its varied forms, periodontal disease has been enmeshed with the damage or loss of investing tissues of the teeth. Over time, the treatment strategies to tackle such long standing diseases have evolved as our understanding of the disease process has enhanced. Blossoming from the earlier concept of arresting tissue loss, the current norm of treatment is aimed at reclaiming the lost periodontal tissues.

Introduction

Periodontal diseases are one of the most primeval and frequent diseases that have plagued mankind. In its varied forms, periodontal disease has been enmeshed with the damage or loss of investing tissues of the teeth. Over time, the treatment strategies to tackle such long standing diseases have evolved as our understanding of the disease process has enhanced. Blossoming from the earlier concept of arresting tissue loss, the current norm of treatment is aimed at reclaiming the lost periodontal tissues. Regeneration of the lost periodontium to its former robust state is now the ultimate goal of periodontal therapy [1].

The History of the Past

Although, regeneration is the basis of any major treatment being carried out these days, it is not a new concept and was conceived in the 1980s [2]. After the emergence of this concept, various materials came into the picture that claimed to achieve the ultimate goal of periodontal regeneration. These materials were marketed in the form of both synthetic and semi- synthetic bone substitutes and barrier membranes which were used in the treatment of intra-bony defects [3, 4]. Despite their imposing claims, these materials failed to accomplish what was being recognized as ‘true regeneration’. The literature became replete with evidence that although these materials were showing attachment gain and ‘apparent bone fill’ mostly in 2D radiography, they failed to deliver authentic bone gain which was being analyzed by performing surgical re-entry [5, 6]. Reynolds et al in a systematic review on the efficacy of bone replacement grafts in the treatment of periodontal osseous defects reported that most of the bone replacement grafts supported periodontal repair rather than regeneration [7]. Regeneration of periodontal tissues is highly technique sensitive and therefore a clinically demanding procedure. Not with standing evidence that some regeneration occurs after regenerative therapy, complete regeneration may be an unlikely event in many situations. The outcome of therapy has been varied and at present unpredictable, depending on numerous parameters some of which were outlined in the consensus report of the AAP Regeneration Workshop [8]. Defect morphology and location have a major contribution in any regeneration that occurs post therapy- deep one or two walled intra- bony defects and Grade III or IV furcation involvements show poorer results in terms of bone gain and also attachment gain [9]. Cortellini, et al. [10] evaluated the osseous healing response of 1-, 2-, and 3-wall combination infrabony defects treated with guided tissue regeneration. They observed that the 3- and 2-wall components were filled 95±6.2% and 82±18.7% of their original depth, respectively; however, the 1-wall component was filled only 39±62.4% [10]. Degree of membrane exposure and its subsequent microbial contamination also affect the outcome of therapy [11]. Ling, et al. [12] evaluated the influence of membrane exposure on guided tissue regeneration in patients with 2-wall or 3-wall intraosseous defects. Their results showed that membrane exposure sites tended to achieve a smaller clinical attachment gain and had significantly greater marginal tissue recession [12]. Recent literature has pointed that the surgical technique being employed during treatment plays a significant role in the extent of regeneration being attained post therapy [13, 14]. Cortellini & Tonetti [15] compared the clinical and radiographic efficacy of the modified minimally invasive surgical technique in the treatment of intra-bony defects and concluded that with or without regenerative materials this technique resulted in significant clinical and radiographic improvements [15]. The importance of space provision and maintenance for regeneration, has been relentlessly asserted by countless authors ever since the genesis of the concept [16, 17]. Haney, et al. [18] reported a significant correlation between the space provided by the membrane and the newly formed bone [18]. Collapse of the barrier membrane over the defect and delayed degradation of bone substitutes in time for new bone formation, both pose an earnest problem in space maintenance and thus negatively influence the outcome of therapy.

The Gift of the Present

The culmination of these facts drew attention to the need of a better treatment option that was designed to deliver what it promised- the elusive goal of true periodontal regeneration. With this concept in mind, a conscious decision was made to adapt the knowledge of molecular biology as the foundation of potential regenerative periodontal treatment. Efforts were made to recapitulate the critical events that take place during wound healing and then to mimic these events to achieve the desired results. This approach was labelled as “Endogenous Regenerative Therapy” and thus, the era of biologically active molecules was ushered into the timeline of regenerative Periodontology [19]. The discovery of enamel matrix proteins was an important milestone in the field of periodontal regeneration. These proteins played important roles in the regeneration of periodontal ligament and cementum when they were being used as local adjuncts in periodontal surgery. Numerous clinical and histologic studies have proved that when enamel matrix derivative was used in the treatment of periodontal defects, regeneration did take place [20, 21]. Sculean A, et al. [22] clinically and histologically evaluated healing of human intrabony defects following treatment with a combination of enamel matrix derivative and bioactive glass (BG) or BG alone. They reported that Healing in defects treated with EMD + BG was mainly characterized by new cementum with inserting collagen fibers and new periodontal ligament while treatment with BG alone resulted in epithelial down-growth and connective tissue encapsulation of the graft [22]. Some authors are now reporting that amelogenins also interact with osteoblasts and fibroblasts, thus suggesting their explicit role in the re-growth of periodontal tissues [23]. The study of molecular mechanisms of the events of periodontal growth advocated imperative roles played by growth factors. Therefore, by logical deduction it was hypothesized that these growth factors may also promote periodontal regeneration. Numerous growth factors including platelet derived growth factor, BMPs, TGF- β, insulin like growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast like growth factor have been used in animal and periodontal defect models and screened for favorable regenerative results [24, 25, 26, 27]. Despite a large body of evidence the application of these materials into everyday periodontal practice is still an abstract goal due many critical factors that impede their transformation into customary commonplace materials. These factors not only include our restricted understanding of the application of these materials to their exact target cells, but also encompass the lack of ideal carriers for these materials and high costs that are associated with their production [28]. Platelet rich plasma and platelet rich fibrin are autologous blood preparations that are enriched with these growth factors and have been extensively used in the treatment of periodontal defects. Both negative and positive outcomes of therapy have been reported with the use of platelet rich preparations. Döri F, et al. [29] clinically compare the healing of intrabony defects treated with either a combination of an organic bovine bone mineral (ABBM) and PRP to those obtained with ABBM alone. They did not use a barrier membrane to cover the defects to prevent masking of the clinical outcomes due to the barrier. They reported that at the end of one year, the use of PRP failed to improve the results obtained with ABBM alone [29]. These findings were challenged by those reported by Lekovic, et al. [30] who examines the suitability of autologous PRF as regenerative treatment for periodontal intrabony defects in humans. The results of their study indicated that PRF can improve clinical parameters by reducing pocket depth, improving clinical attachment levels and promoting defect fill [30].

The Mystery of Future

With transcending times, regenerative therapies are transforming from their earlier rustic avatars to newer and better techniques that hinge on the capitalization of the heightened de-novo tissue formation produced by stem cell therapy. These therapies are aimed at nurturing three dimensional tissue configurations that can be considered as clinically acceptable regenerated tissues. To this end, researchers are utilizing numerous strategies that range from the direct delivery of encapsulated stem cells at the site to trying to recruit the body’s own cells to produce regeneration [31]. A systematic review has shown that when applied in actual bone defects, DPSCs were capable of regenerating bone in experimental animals [32]. However, these methods are facing their own set of complications which are to date, preventing their application in conventional clinical frameworks. Complications include the presence of endogenous retroviruses in xenogenic cells and paucity of harvested autogenous stem cells [33]. Extracellular matrix extracts or derivatives have been developed as commercial products for cell delivery. But, these materials incorporate animal-derived products and/or allogenic tissues and thus constitute a potential source of pathogens [34]. A culmination of preceding endeavors led to the emergence of the cell seeded scaffold paradigm. This strategy involves the isolation of pertinent cell lineages derived from the patient, their in-vitro expansion, followed by their seeding into a specifically designed three dimensional scaffold which is then saturated with appropriate signaling molecules, and subsequently implanted at the defect site [31]. Various natural and synthetic materials are being utilized for the designing of these scaffolds-collagen, fibrinogen, fibronectin, beta-tricalcium phosphate and synthetic hydrogels amongst others. Periodontal defects in non- human primates were implanted with recombinant human transforming growth factor-beta 3 in Matrigel delivery system. Morphometric analyses after 60 days showed pronounced periodontal regeneration in experimental defects [35]. Very limited information is available on the morphological and structural characteristics of adult mesenchymal cells, and even less information is available on their differentiated cell lineages, such as osteogenic cells. Therefore, although tissue engineering comprises a highly attractive treatment prospect, cell-based therapy is still limited to clinical trials and is not performed in a routine clinical setting.

Conclusion

In this eon of evidence based dentistry, our literature stands in front of us like a mirror, reflecting a scenario of regenerative periodontology that is yet to achieve the stability that has been associated with conventional treatment modalities. Although, the concept of tissue engineering bestows an appealing approach to periodontal regeneration by utilizing cells and bioactive agents for therapeutics, it is still in its infancy. Considerable work is being carried out to overcome the practical shortcomings of these procedures and to assist the theoretic fundamentals of periodontal regeneration in reaching its full potential in clinical situations. The vision for our future will unquestionably be centered on a deeper understanding of the molecular biology of regenerative processes. However, the conversion of desired predictable clinical outcomes from fiction to fact still remains the elusive goal of regenerative therapy.

References

  1. Sculean A, Nikolidakis D, Schwarz F (2008) Regeneration of periodontal tissues: combinations of barrier membranes and grafting materials - biological foundation and preclinical evidence: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 35(8): 106-116.
  2. Lindhe J, Nyman S, Karring T (1984) Connective tissue reattachment as related to presence or absence of alveolar bone. J Clin Periodontol 11(1): 33-40.
  3. AlGhamdi AS, Shibly O, Ciancio SG (2010) Osseous grafting part I: autografts and allografts for periodontal regeneration-a literature review. J Int Acad Periodontol 12(2): 34-38.
  4. AlGhamdi AS, Shibly O, Ciancio SG (2010) Osseous grafting part II: Xenografts and Alloplasts for periodontal regeneration-a literature review. J Int Acad Periodontol 12(2): 39-44.
  5. Hanes PJ (2007) Bone replacement grafts for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 19(4): 499-512.
  6. Stavropoulos A, Windisch P, Szendröi-Kiss D, Peter R, Gera I, et al. (2010) Clinical and histologic evaluation of granular Beta-tricalcium phosphate for the treatment of human intrabony periodontal defects: a report on five cases. J Periodontol 81(2): 325-334.
  7. Reynolds MA, Aichelmann-Reidy ME, Branch-Mays GL, Gunsolley JC (2003) The efficacy of bone replacement grafts in the treatment of periodontal osseous defects. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol 8(1): 227-265.
  8. Reynolds MA, Kao RT, Camargo PM, Caton JG, Clem DS, et al. (2015) Periodontal regeneration - intrabony defects: a consensus report from the AAP Regeneration Workshop. J Periodontol 86(2): 105- 107.
  9. Mora F, Etienne D, Ouhayoun JP (1996) Treatment of interproximal angular defects by guided tissue regeneration: 1 year follow-up. J Oral Rehabil 23(9): 599-606.
  10. Cortellini P, Pini Prato G, Tonetti MS (1993) Periodontal regeneration of human infrabony defects. II. Re-entry procedures and bone measures. J Periodontol 64(4): 261-268.
  11. Hung SL, Lin YW, Wang YH, Chen YT, Su CY, et al. (2002) Permeability of Streptococcus mutans and Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans through guided tissue regeneration membranes and their effects on attachment of periodontal ligament cells. J Periodontol 73(8): 843-851.
  12. Ling LJ, Hung SL, Lee CF, Chen YT, Wu KM (2003) The influence of membrane exposure on the outcomes of guided tissue regeneration: clinical and microbiological aspects. J Periodontal Res 38(1): 57- 63.
  13. Sanz M, Simion M, Abbas F, Aroca S, Artzi Z, et al. (2014) Surgical techniques on periodontal plastic surgery and soft tissue regeneration: consensus report of Group 3 of the 10th European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 41(15): 92-97.
  14. Ghezzi C, Ferrantino L, Bernardini L, Lencioni M, Masiero S (2016) Minimally Invasive Surgical Technique in Periodontal Regeneration: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Pilot Study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 36(4): 475-482.
  15. Cortellini P, Tonetti MS (2011) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the modified minimally invasive surgical technique with and without regenerative materials: a randomized-controlled trial in intra-bony defects. J Clin Periodontol 38(4): 365- 373.
  16. Polimeni G, Koo KT, Qahash M, Xiropaidis AV, Albandar JM, et al. (2004) Prognostic factors for alveolar regeneration: effect of a space-providing biomaterial on guided tissue regeneration. J Clin Periodontol 31(9): 725-729.
  17. Scantlebury TV (1993) 1982-1992: a decade of technology development for guided tissue regeneration. J Periodontol 64(11): 1129-1137.
  18. Haney JM, Nilveus RE, McMillan PJ, Wikesjo UM (1993) Periodontal repair in dogs: expanded polytetrafluoroethylene barrier membranes support wound stabilization and enhance bone regeneration. J Periodontol 64(9): 883-890.
  19. Chen FM, Zhang J, Zhang M, An Y, Chen F, et al. (2010) A review on endogenous regenerative technology in periodontal regenerative medicine. Biomaterial 31(31): 7892-7927.
  20. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Papanikolaou N, Coulthard P, Worthington HV (2009) Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects. A Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2(4): 247-266.
  21. Wachtel H, Schenk G, Böhm S, Weng D, Zuhr O, et al. (2003) Microsurgical access flap and enamel matrix derivative for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects: a controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 30(6): 496-504.
  22. Sculean A, Windisch P, Keglevich T, Gera I (2005) Clinical and histologic evaluation of an enamel matrix protein derivative combined with a bioactive glass for the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects in humans. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 25(2): 139-147.
  23. Lyngstadaas SP, Lundberg E, Ekdahl H, Andersson C, Gestrelius S (2001) Autocrine growth factors in human periodontal ligament cells cultured on enamel matrix derivative. J Clin Periodontol 28(2): 181-188.
  24. Giannobile WV, Hollister SJ, Ma PX (2011) Future Prospects for Periodontal Bioengineering Using Growth Factors. Clinic Adv Periodontics 1(2): 88-94.
  25. Kaigler D, Avila G, Wisner-Lynch L, Nevins ML, Nevins M, et al. (2011) Platelet-derived growth factor applications in periodontal and peri-implant bone regeneration. Expert Opin Biol Ther 11(3): 375-385.
  26. Ripamonti U, Teare J, Petit JC (2006) Pleiotropism of bone morphogenetic proteins: from bone induction to cementogenesis and periodontal ligament regeneration. J Int Acad Periodontol 8(1): 23-32.
  27. Ripamonti U (2016) Redefining the induction of periodontal tissue regeneration in primates by the osteogenic proteins of the transforming growth factor-β supergene family. J Periodontal Res 51(6): 699-715.
  28. Bartold PM (2015) Group C. Initiator paper. Periodontal regeneration--fact or fiction? J Int Acad Periodontol 17(1): 37-49.
  29. Döri F, Kovács V, Arweiler NB, Huszár T, Gera I, et al. (2009) Effect of platelet-rich plasma on the healing of intrabony defects treated with an anorganic bovine bone mineral: a pilot study. J Periodontol 80(10): 1599-1605.
  30. Lekovic V, Milinkovic I, Aleksic Z, Jankovic S, Stankovic P, et al. (2012) Platelet-rich fibrin and bovine porous bone mineral vs. platelet-rich fibrin in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects. J Periodontal Res 47(4): 409-417.
  31. Abou Neel EA, Chrzanowski W, Salih VM, Kim HW, Knowles JC (2014) Tissue engineering in dentistry. J Dent 42(8): 915-928.
  32. Morad G, Kheiri L, Khojasteh A (2013) Dental pulp stem cells for in vivo bone regeneration: a systematic review of literature. Arch Oral Biol 58(12): 1818- 1827.
  33. Ikada Y (2006) Challenges in tissue engineering. J R Soc Interface 3(10): 589-601.
  34. Bartold PM, Xiao Y, Lyngstaadas SP, Paine ML, Snead ML (2000) Principles and applications of cell delivery systems for periodontal regeneration. Periodontol 41: 123-135.
  35. Teare JA, Ramoshebi LN, Ripamonti U (2008) Periodontal tissue regeneration by recombinant human transforming growth factor-beta 3 in Papioursinus. J Periodontal Res 43(1): 1-8.
More from this journal

Cite this article

BibTeX
APA
RIS
@article{pearl2017,
  title   = {Periodontal Tissue Regeneration: Fact or Fiction?},
  author  = {Pearl B* and Grover HS},
  journal = {Open Access Journal of Dental Sciences},
  year    = {2017},
  volume  = {2},
  number  = {1},
  doi     = {10.23880/oajds-16000126}
}
Pearl B* and Grover HS (2017). Periodontal Tissue Regeneration: Fact or Fiction?. Open Access Journal of Dental Sciences, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.23880/oajds-16000126
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Periodontal Tissue Regeneration: Fact or Fiction?
AU  - Pearl B* and Grover HS
JO  - Open Access Journal of Dental Sciences
PY  - 2017
VL  - 2
IS  - 1
DO  - 10.23880/oajds-16000126
ER  -