OBJECTIVES To analyse evidence regarding the efficacy of periodontal regenerative procedures in intrabony defects in patients treated for aggressive periodontitis (AgP). MATERIAL AND METHODS A systematic search of the literature for randomised controlled clinical trials including patients treated for aggressive periodontitis that compared a group treated with regenerative therapy with another group treated with surgical debridement alone was conducted by two independent reviewers. RESULTS Six studies were included in the meta-analysis of clinical and/or radiographic parameters at 6 and 12 months. Probing pocket depth was smaller at 6 months in patients treated with regenerative therapies compared with those treated with regular debridement (1.00 mm, p < 0.001, 95% CI (0.67, 1.34)). At 12 months this difference was more marked (0.41 mm, p = 0.12, 95% CI (- 0.10, 0.91)). The distance between the cemento-enamel junction and the alveolar crest at both 6 (1.36 mm, p < 0.001, 95% CI (1.03, 1.68)) and 12 months (0.90 mm, p = 0.01, 95% CI (0.24, 1.56)) was smaller in the group treated with regeneration. CONCLUSIONS The use of biomaterials for regenerative therapy in AgP may be more effective than surgical debridement. Better outcomes were observed in terms of probing pocket depth and distance between the cemento-enamel junction and the alveolar crest at 6 months. Regeneration should be considered as a therapy to prevent tooth loss, although more studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Periodontal regeneration is effective in the treatment of intrabony defects in patients with AgP, as it leads to better outcomes in clinical and radiographic parameters.

中文翻译：

---

再生疗法在侵袭性牙周炎中的功效：随机对照临床试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。

目的分析有关牙周再生手术治疗侵略性牙周炎（AgP）患者的骨内缺损有效性的证据。材料和方法由两名独立的审阅者对包括接受侵袭性牙周炎治疗的患者进行随机对照临床试验的文献进行系统搜索，该患者将接受再生治疗的组与仅接受手术治疗的患者进行了比较。结果6项研究被纳入6和12个月的临床和/或放射学参数的荟萃分析。与常规清创术治疗的患者相比，接受再生治疗的患者在6个月时探查囊袋深度更小（1.00 mm，p <0.001，95％CI（0.67，1.34））。在12个月时，这种差异更加明显（0.41 mm，p = 0。12，95％CI（-0.10，0.91））。牙釉质交界处与牙槽c之间的距离分别为6（1.36 mm，p <0.001，95％CI（1.03，1.68））和12个月（0.90 mm，p = 0.01，95％CI（0.24，1.56） ））在再生处理组中较小。结论在AgP中使用生物材料进行再生治疗可能比手术清创术更有效。在6个月时探查牙龈深度和牙釉质牙釉质连接点与牙槽c之间的距离方面，观察到了更好的结果。尽管需要进行更多的研究，以更大的样本量和更长的随访时间，但应将再生视为预防牙齿脱落的疗法。临床相关性牙周再生可有效治疗AgP患者的骨内缺损，