Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 120  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission

 Table of Contents  
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 927-932  

Various assisted bone regeneration in apicectomy defects systematic review and meta analysis

1 Department of Endodontics, Sebha Dental College, University of Sebha, Sebha, Libya, North Africa, Libya
2 Department of OMFS, Narsinbhai Patel Dental College and Hospital, Sankalchand Patel University, Visnagar, Gujarat, India
3 BDS, Government Dental College, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
4 Department of Conservative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al Kharj, Saudi Arabia
5 Department of Orthodontics, Rayat Bahra Dental College, SAS Nagar, Punjab, India
6 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, VYWS Dental College and Hospital, Amravati, Maharashtra, India

Date of Submission08-May-2021
Date of Decision15-May-2021
Date of Acceptance21-May-2021
Date of Web Publication10-Nov-2021

Correspondence Address:
Ananad Sumangali
Endodontist, Associate Professor, Sebha Dental College, University of Sebha, Sebha
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_375_21

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: In the endodontic surgery, the common applications are the procedures that apply regenerative methods. There are various methods that help in the regeneration after the endodontic root end cutting or apicectomy. The outcome of the apicectomy depends on the procedure and the material. Hence in the present study, we intend to conduct the systemic review and meta-analysis of the various assisted bone regeneration in apicectomy defects. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted by the online search of the data that included the studies for the regenerative procedure in the endodontic surgery in patients with various periapical pathologies. The data search engines were Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The risk of the bias was calculated. The study participants were divided into case and control groups. Case group had undergone the regenerative surgery for the persistent periapical lesions, while the control group had not undergone the regenerative surgery for the persistent periapical l. The clinical and the radiograph outcomes were compared between the control and the case groups. Meta-analysis was done and the subgroups were evaluated. Results: From a total of 1561 articles, only 11 were finalized for the study to conduct the meta-analysis. The bias was noted for majority of the studies most of which were clinical trials. It was observed that the regenerative methods used in the endodontic surgery have significantly improved the outcome. The application of the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene only has no significant effect; however, application of the autologous platelet concentrates or collagen membranes only had good outcomes. The combination of the materials showed a significant outcome than when applied alone. Conclusions: From this meta-analysis, it is evident that regenerative procedures are beneficial in the endodontic apicectomy procedures. The materials used in these procedures will augment the outcome. A better prognosis is expected if the combination of the materials is used.

Keywords: Apicoectomy, bone regeneration methods, meta-analysis, root end cutting

How to cite this article:
Sumangali A, Tiwari RV, Kollipara J, Mirza MB, Brar RS, Dhewale AM. Various assisted bone regeneration in apicectomy defects systematic review and meta analysis. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2021;13, Suppl S2:927-32

How to cite this URL:
Sumangali A, Tiwari RV, Kollipara J, Mirza MB, Brar RS, Dhewale AM. Various assisted bone regeneration in apicectomy defects systematic review and meta analysis. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Oct 2];13, Suppl S2:927-32. Available from:

   Introduction Top

Prevention is better than cure. It is even better noticed in the dentistry. The preservation of the tooth is better than the replacement. With the enhanced patient motivation and education they prefer for the preservation than the prosthetic replacement.[1] Routine endodontics involves orthograde procedures, but if there is any repeated and resilient infection, the retrograde filling or endodontic surgery is preferred.[2] The periapical tissues repair by either the repair or the regeneration.[3] The repair is by the new tissue and the regeneration is by the original cells. The regeneration is the best method as it will restore the function of the periapical tissue to the previous tissue.[2],[3],[4],[5] However, the regeneration is difficult to attain. Many procedures have been implemented to attain the regeneration of the apical tissues in the periapical pathologies of the teeth. In the regenerative methods the materials like grafts (bone), autologous platelet concentrates, barriers that act to prevent the growth of the new tissue, etc., are commonly used.[4] The regenerative procedures are implemented in periodontics, endodontic, and implant surgeries. There are materials that are recently reported with better regeneration than the repair in endodontic surgeries. They are bio-absorbable collagen, e-PTFE-non-resorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, etc. These work by preventing the migration of the cells apically and promoting the regeneration.[5],[6]

However, there are various studies that report varying degree of the success using the regenerative methods.[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13] Although there are many studies, there have been contrary reports of the success of the regenerative procedures. Also, only a few studies have compared the materials used in these regenerative procedures. Hence in the present study, we intend to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis of the various assisted bone regeneration in apicectomy defects.

   Materials and Methods Top

This meta-analysis was piloted based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. The study was conducted for a period of 1 year, and the studies done till March 2021 were included in the meta-analysis.

A literature search was done by the data search engines. They are Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed. MEDLINE (PubMed), and EMBASE. The ensuing search terms were used: endodontic surgery, root canal treatment (RCT), apicectomy, periapical radiolucency, regenerative procedures, and various regenerative materials such as, GTR, collagen membrane, bone graft, and platelet-rich fibrin. Only human studies were included. The case reports were removed from the study criteria. All the RCTs were included in the study. The language restriction was not considered. The translatable clinical trials were included.

We included only the studies that were

  1. Randomized Controlled trial
  2. Root end surgery for persistent periapical pathology
  3. Persistent periapical radiolucency.

Excluded studies were those where the patients had any medical condition, other periodontal conditions, no thorough follow up data, no materials used for the regeneration materials utilized in the study, the study was poorly designed, the root fracture after the therapy, and short-term follow up for less than an year.

The article selection was done by two reviewers unrelated to each other. The selection was done by studying the full text, title, and methodology. The data were extracted by searching the terms apicectomy, lesion size, results and observation after 12 months, and method and the material used for the regeneration.

Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias for the randomized controlled trials, done by the reviewers that have fields on random sequence generations, blinding of reviewers and the patients, clinicians, blinding of outcome appraisers, unfinished outcome data, and reporting selectively. They were classified as three risks of high, moderate, and low.

The outcome was measured as the clinical and radiographic observation. In the statistical analysis, outcomes of interest were considered as success and failure. These were based on the radiographic and the clinical outputs. Success is described by the absence of clinical symptoms along with the presence of complete or incomplete radiographic healing. Failure is described by the presence of any clinical symptoms along with the presence of unclear radiographic healing.

Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014. was used for the statistical analysis. The results were shown by the Forest plot that was used to assess the data from the comparable studies with the same procedures. Relative risk with 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous data was applied for the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity of the included studies was assessed using the I2 for each pooled estimate. P < 0.10 was considered significant. Publication bias was assessed by the funnel plots. The reported efficacy was compared with a control group and P < 0.05 was considered significant.

   Results Top

In the present systemic review, a total of 1561 articles were considered after the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were 1550 articles that were excluded as they were <1 year follow-up studies, retrospective studies without the specification of the regenerative material used in the study, animal trials, and experimental design. For the final consideration of the study, 11 of the articles were considered for the meta-analysis.[8],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23] [Figure 1] describes the selection of the articles.
Figure 1: Flow chart describing the selection of the articles

Click here to view

Features of the included articles

[Table 1] and [Table 2] describe the characters of the study. In these eleven studies, a total of 263 patients were enrolled for the regenerative procedure, the controls were 196 patients. In some studies, there were comparisons of more than one regeneration material and their comparison with the control group. In the meta-analysis, various case groups were combined to do the single pairwise comparison with that of the nonintervention groups. In the subcategory analysis, statistics from the corresponding pair of case group was compared to the nonintervention groups. [Table 1] depicts the type of the regenerative materials and their combination. Blinding of the examiners was not mentioned in 6 studies.
Table 1: Comparison of the included studies

Click here to view
Table 2: The features of the studies considered for the meta-analysis

Click here to view

To check the bias, six domains were selected. They are missing outcome data, randomization, selection of the reported results, deviation from intention, measurement of the outcome, and overall. In 2 studies, a lower bias was found. For the other studies, a moderate bias was found. In the included studies, the randomization was poorly described. The randomization was not explained in the 8 studies. Outcome was not thoroughly explained/judged in 6 studies. Only three studies completely explained all the three dominions. The calculation of risk of bias is revealed in [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Risk-of-bias

Click here to view

Observations were made from this meta-analysis.

No heterogeneity was seen in the articles considered for the study. The units of the outcome were kept uniform. A statistically significant difference was seen in the case group than the control group with respect to the final outcome. For the comparison of the various materials, no statistically significant difference was seen when the APCs, collagen, and e-PTFE membranes were applied in the regenerative procedures [Figure 3].
Figure 3: Failure rates analysis shown in the Forest plot. (a) e-ptfe membrane, (b) collagen membrane, (c) collagen membrane with hydroxyapetite, (d) APCs

Click here to view

However, their application enhanced the outcome than in the control groups. However when they were combined, there was observed significant better outcome. The funnel plot is shown in [Figure 4] that shows the publication bias.
Figure 4: Funnel plot

Click here to view

   Discussion Top

In clinical practice for the better clinical outcome, regenerative methods for the endodontic surgery are applied. In these regenerative methods, various materials have been used. However, there have been insufficient data that prove the efficiency of these materials.

From our meta-analysis, it was seen that the application of the various regenerative methods helps in a better outcome than those without the regenerative methods. No statistically significant difference was seen when the APCs, collagen, and e-PTFE membranes were applied in the regenerative procedures. However, their application enhanced the outcome than in the control groups. But when they were combined, there was observed significant better outcome.

It was also observed in the present study that the age ranged from 10 to 70 years. Equal gender distribution was seen. The teeth from all the four quadrants were included. Hence, the observations of the present review can be applied to the general population. The materials used are collagen and e-PTFE membranes, bone grafts, and APCs.

e-PTFE membranes is one the first materials that is biocompatible used in the endodontic regenerative procedures for the apicectomy.[23] The meta-analysis for the 2 studies included the e-PTFE membranes: Pecora[23] and Tobon et al.[14] However, the study output was contradictory to each other. This membrane however is prone to lodging the bacteria that may hamper the outcome in the regenerative procedures for the apicectomy. The recently developed high-density PTFE membrane may overcome this problem.

With respect to the collagen membrane, the observations of our study are in accordance with the previous studies. In our study, the combination of the collagen with the bovine material had better results than when used alone.[17],[23] However, the resorption of the material is slow. This material is easily accepted and does not elicit any host response. This precludes the necessity of the second intervention.[1],[9],[24] To overcome the defects of the collagen alone, the bovine-derived hydroxyapatite is used in the combination. They are Bio-GideTM and Bio-OssTM. Bio-OssTM is treated by chemical and heat treatments and osteogenic capacity is lost. Hydroxyapatite is present in the io-OssTM that has a porous design. It has osteoconductivity and can act as a framework to permit the inflow of host osteogenic cells. Also it is biocompatible. Bio-OssTM resorbs slowly and incorporated in the osteogenesis. In the 5 trials from our study where Bio-GideTM+Bio-OssTM were applied, subcategory investigation depicted a significant improvement in the cases.

From the older studies, the size of the periapical lesion was also considered a prognostic factor. Delayed healing is seen for the apical lesions >5 mm in diameter. Five trials in our study included cases who had moderate to large apical lesions. We observed in our study that the combination of Bio-GideTM+Bio-OssTM could lead to better results after apicectomy for these cases.

APCs have been increasingly used in the recent as innovative regenerative materials in apicectomy. They have growth factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor, platelet-derived growth factor, and TGF-β.[25] They are extensively used in periodontal surgery; however, their application in apicectomy and other endodontic surgeries is to be assessed. Form the three studies that included the APCs, the healing and the clinical/radiographic results were satisfactory. Yet, there is a little evidence supporting the application of the various APCs in the endodontic surgery. Much more clinical studies are warranted to better understand the outcome with these materials.

There were some limitations in our study. The size of the lesion for the apicectomy was not generalized. The sample size varied among the included studies. Also, the recent advanced materials were not considered in the present meta-analysis. Research analysis is to be done with the new materials included. Only 1 year follow-up was done but the outcome after the long term is unknown. Randomization and blinding were unclear in majority of the studies. However, the risk of bias was low based on the 6 criteria to measure the bias. The study was neglected only if a fifth of the outcome was missing.[24] The present systemic review gives evidence-centered results and discourses the advantages and the disadvantages of the normally applied regenerative methods and constituents and should hence may be helpful to the endodontists for proper planning.

   Conclusions Top

Application of the regenerative procedures in the apicectomy by the various materials helps in the present better healing after the endodontic surgery as shown in our study. Combination of the materials is advocated for the improved outcome than application of the individual material. Larger premeditated randomized controlled trials are imperative to evaluate the advantages of the various regenerative materials for the surgeries in endodontics.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

   References Top

Azarpazhooh A, Dao T, Figueiredo R, Krahn M, Friedman S. A survey of patients' preferences for the treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis. J Endod 2013;39:1534-41.  Back to cited text no. 1
von Arx T, Alsaeed M. The use of regenerative techniques in apical surgery: A literature review. Saudi Dent J 2011;23:113-27.  Back to cited text no. 2
Lin L, Chen MY, Ricucci D, Rosenberg PA. Guided tissue regeneration in periapical surgery. J Endod 2010;36:618-25.  Back to cited text no. 3
Bashutski JD, Wang HL. Periodontal and endodontic regeneration. J Endod 2009;35:321-8.  Back to cited text no. 4
Pompa DG. Guided tissue repair of complete buccal dehiscences associated with periapical defects: A clinical retrospective study. J Am Dent Assoc 1997;128:989-97.  Back to cited text no. 5
Rohilla R, Tewari S, Nayyar AS. Efficacy of Guided Tissue Regeneration (GTR) membranes in the healing of apico-marginal defects: A prospective, controlled clinical trial. Int J Orofac Res 2017;2:11-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
  [Full text]  
Stassen LF, Hislop WS, Still DM, Moos KF. Use of anorganic bone in periapical defects following apical surgery—a prospective trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;32:83-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
Pecora G, Kim S, Celletti R, Davarpanah M. The guided tissue regeneration principle in endodontic surgery: One-year postoperative results of large periapical lesions. Int Endodontic J 1995;28:41-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
Yoshikawa G, Murashima Y, Wadachi R, Sawada N, Suda H. Guided bone regeneration (GBR) using membranes and calcium sulphate after apicectomy: A comparative histomorphometrical study. Int Endod J 2002;35:255-63.  Back to cited text no. 9
Apaydin ES, Torabinejad M. The effect of calcium sulfate on hard-tissue healing after periradicular surgery. J Endod 2004;30:17-20.  Back to cited text no. 10
Taschieri S, Testori T, Azzola F, Del Fabbro M, Valentini P. Guided-tissue regeneration in endodontic surgery. Revue de Stomatologie et de Chirurgie Maxillo-Faciale 2008;109:213-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
Lin GH, Chang LY, Lin WC, Lee SY, Lai YL. Interdisciplinary approach for treating a large through-and-through periapical defect using guided tissue regeneration: A case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2014;34:e1-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
Corbella S, Taschieri S, Elkabbany A, Del Fabbro M, von Arx T. Guided tissue regeneration using a barrier membrane in endodontic surgery. Swiss Dent J 2016;126:13-25.  Back to cited text no. 13
Tobón SI, Arismendi JA, Marín ML, Mesa AL, Valencia JA. Comparison between a conventional technique and two bone regeneration techniques in periradicular surgery. Int Endod J 2002;35:635-41.  Back to cited text no. 14
Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Saita M, Weinstein R. (2008a) Efficacy of guided tissue regeneration in the management of through-and-through lesions following surgical endodontics: A preliminary study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008;28:265-71.  Back to cited text no. 15
Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Weinstein R. Efficacy of xenogeneic bone grafting with guided tissue regeneration in the management of bone defects after surgical endodontics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007;65:1121-7.  Back to cited text no. 16
Dominiak M, Lysiak-Drwal K, Gedrange T, Zietek M, Gerber H. Efficacy of healing process of bone defects after apicectomy: Results after 6 and 12 months. J Physiol Pharmacol 2009;60 Suppl 8:51-5.  Back to cited text no. 17
Pan XY, Wang X, Li YG. Application of guided tissue regeneration in apical microsurgery. Chin J Conserv Dent 2001;21:41-4.  Back to cited text no. 18
Chen Y, Shen J. Clinical observation of GTR combined with bone grafting in endodontic microsurgery. J Oral Science Research 2016;32:1269-72.  Back to cited text no. 19
Turck CW, Webhofer C, Nussbaumer M, Teplytska L, Chen A, Maccarrone G, et al. Stable isotope metabolic labeling suggests differential turnover of the DPYSL protein family. Proteomics Clin Appl 2016;10:1269-72.  Back to cited text no. 20
Wang XD, Ye HY, Wang LL. Clinical study of apical microsurgery combined with bone graft for periapical lesions. Chin J Geriatr Dent 2017;15:1-4.  Back to cited text no. 21
Parmar PD, Dhamija R, Tewari S, Sangwan P, Gupta A, Duhan J, et al. 2D and 3D radiographic outcome assessment of the effect of guided tissue regeneration using resorbable collagen membrane in the healing of through-and-through periapical lesions-a randomized controlled trial. Int Endod J 2019;52:935-48.  Back to cited text no. 22
Pecora G, De Leonardis D, Ibrahim N, Bovi M, Cornelini R. The use of calcium sulphate in the surgical treatment of a 'through and through' periradicular lesion. Int Endod J 2001;34:189-97.  Back to cited text no. 23
Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.  Back to cited text no. 24
Cochran DL, Wozney JM. Biological mediators for periodontal regeneration. Periodontol 2000 1999;19:40-58.  Back to cited text no. 25


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]

  [Table 1], [Table 2]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
    Materials and Me...
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded66    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal