Overview of the Effect of Different Regenerative Materials in Class II Furcation Defects in Periodontal Patients

The aim of this review was to give an overview of the outcomes of the use of different regenerative materials to treat molars with class II furcation defects in patients with periodontitis in comparison with open flap debridement (OFD). A search of five databases (PubMed-Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science) was conducted up to and including January 2022. According to the PICOS guidelines, only randomized control trials (S) considering periodontal patients with at least one molar with a class II furcation involvement (P) treated with regenerative materials (I) in comparison to OFD as control treatment (C) and a minimum follow-up period of 6 months were included. Vertical clinical attachment level (VCAL) was considered as the primary outcome (O), while horizontal clinical attachment level (HCAL), horizontal probing depth (HPD) and vertical probing depth (VPD) were considered as secondary outcomes. The search through the databases initially identified 1315 articles. Only 25 of them met the eligibility criteria and were included. The studies were grouped in four macro-categories according to the material used: Absorbable and nonabsorbable membranes, blood derivatives and a combination of different materials. The greater part of the included studies reported a statistically significant difference in using regenerative materials when compared to OFD. The blood derivatives groups reported a range of mean changes in VCAL of 0.86–4.6 mm, absorbable membrane groups reported -0.6–3.75 mm, non-absorbable membranes groups reported -2.47–4.1 mm, multiple materials groups reported -1.5–4.87 mm and enamel matrix derivatives reported a mean change in VCAL of 1.45 mm. OFD showed a range of mean VCAL changes of -1.86–2.81 mm. Although no statistical analysis was performed, the use of regenerative materials may be considered moderately beneficial in the treatment of molars with grade II furcation involvement. However, the substantial heterogeneity in the protocols’ design does not allow us to draw definitive conclusions. In addition, low levels of evidence for morbidity and patient-centered outcomes were reported.