Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 May 3;23(1):256.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-02964-6.

Intra-marrow penetrations and root coverage outcomes: a systematic review

Affiliations

Intra-marrow penetrations and root coverage outcomes: a systematic review

Vrisiis Kofina et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Background: Intra-marrow penetrations (IMPs) have been performed during guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedures with reported clinical benefits. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the use and effect of IMPs during root coverage procedures.

Method: A broad search for human and animal studies was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials and Web of Science, following a registered review protocol (PROSPERO). All prospective study designs, case series and case reports on gingival recession treatment (follow-up ≥ 6 months) that employed IMPs were included. Root coverage, complete root coverage prevalence, and adverse effects were recorded, and risk of bias was assessed.

Results: Of 16,181 screened titles, 5 articles (all of them human studies) met inclusion criteria. All studies (including two randomized clinical trials) treated Miller class I and II recession defects, using coronally advanced flap with IMPs alone or in conjunction with GTR protocols. Therefore, all treated defects received IMPs and no studies compared protocols with and without IMPs. Outcomes were indirectly compared with existing root coverage literature. Mean root coverage was 2.7 mm and 68.5% at 6.8 months (median: 6 months, range 6-15 months) for sites treated with IMPs.

Conclusion: IMPs are rarely used during root coverage procedures, have not been associated with intra-surgical or wound healing adverse effects and have not been investigated as independent factor. Future clinical studies are needed to directly compare treatment protocols with and without IMPs and investigate the potential benefits of IMPs for root coverage.

Keywords: Bone marrow/*surgery; Gingival recession; Osteotomy; Surgical flaps; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart illustrating the study selection process

References

    1. Albandar JM, Kingman A. Gingival recession, gingival bleeding, and dental calculus in adults 30 years of age and older in the United States, 1988–1994. J Periodontol. 1999;70:30–43. doi: 10.1902/jop.1999.70.1.30. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Romandini M, Soldini MC, Montero E, Sanz M. Epidemiology of mid-buccal gingival recessions in NHANES according to the 2018 World workshop classification system. J Clin Periodontol. 2020;47:1180–90. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13353. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chambrone L, Tatakis DN. Long-term outcomes of untreated buccal gingival recessions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol. 2016;87:796–808. doi: 10.1902/jop.2016.150625. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cortellini P, Bissada NF. Mucogingival conditions in the natural dentition: narrative review, case definitions, and diagnostic considerations. J Periodontol. 2018;89(Suppl 1):204–13. doi: 10.1002/JPER.16-0671. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nieri M, Pini Prato GP, Giani M, Magnani N, Pagliaro U, Rotundo R. Patient perceptions of buccal gingival recessions and requests for treatment. J Clin Periodontol. 2013;40:707–12. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12114. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources