Evidence Hub

Comparision of crosslinked hyaluronic acid vs. enamel matrix derivative for periodontal regeneration: an 18-month follow-up randomized clinical trial

M. Rodrigueza, J. Montiel-Company, F. Alpiste-Illueca, Lucía Rodríguez-A, Vanessa Paredes-Gallardo, A. López-Roldán

Clinical Oral Investigations, 2025

53 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

Aim To compare the effects of 1.8% hyaluronic acid (HA) and enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on periodontal regeneration in patients with periodontal bone defects, using clinical and radiographic parameters as outcome measures. Materials and methods We included 53 patients with 53 intrabony defects in this study who were randomly assigned to either the HA (test) or EMD (control) groups. Clinical and radiographic parameters were evaluated at 6, 12, and 18 months after the surgery. Results Clinical measurements at 6, 12, and 18 months after surgery demonstrated significant improvements in probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession (REC), and bleeding on probing for both groups compared with baseline (p < 0.001). The EMD group exhibited the highest CAL gain of 2–3 mm at 6 months, observed in 14 of 26 (53.8%) defect sites. Conversely, the HA group demonstrated a CAL gain ≥ 4 mm at 18 months, observed in 13 of 27 (48.1%) defect sites. Radiographic assessments at 6, 12, and 18 months demonstrated significant improvements from baseline for both groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion We found significant clinical and radiographic benefits of HA and EMD at 18 months, with some limitations in effectiveness for specific intraosseous defects. Clinical relevance This study demonstrated that hyaluronic acid (HA), combined with minimally invasive techniques, enhances periodontal regeneration by improving PPD reduction, CAL gain, and radiographic bone filling, with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 53 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free