Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of tissue engineering strategies for periodontal and peri-implant reconstruction.

Scientific advancements in biomaterials, cellular therapies, and growth factors have brought new therapeutic options for periodontal and peri-implant reconstructive procedures. These tissue engineering strategies involve the enrichment of scaffolds with living cells or signaling molecules and aim at mimicking the cascades of wound healing events and the clinical outcomes of conventional autogenous grafts, without the need for donor tissue. Several tissue engineering strategies have been explored over the years for a variety of clinical scenarios, including periodontal regeneration, treatment of gingival recessions/mucogingival conditions, alveolar ridge preservation, bone augmentation procedures, sinus floor elevation, and peri-implant bone regeneration therapies. The goal of this article was to review the tissue engineering strategies that have been performed for periodontal and peri-implant reconstruction and implant site development, and to evaluate their safety, invasiveness, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes. A detailed systematic search was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials reporting the outcomes of tissue engineering strategies utilized for the aforementioned indications. A total of 128 trials were ultimately included in this review for a detailed qualitative analysis. Commonly performed tissue engineering strategies involved scaffolds enriched with mesenchymal or somatic cells (cell-based tissue engineering strategies), or more often scaffolds loaded with signaling molecules/growth factors (signaling molecule-based tissue engineering strategies). These approaches were found to be safe when utilized for periodontal and peri-implant reconstruction therapies and implant site development. Tissue engineering strategies demonstrated either similar or superior clinical outcomes than conventional approaches for the treatment of infrabony and furcation defects, alveolar ridge preservation, and sinus floor augmentation. Tissue engineering strategies can promote higher root coverage, keratinized tissue width, and gingival thickness gain than scaffolds alone can, and they can often obtain similar mean root coverage compared with autogenous grafts. There is some evidence suggesting that tissue engineering strategies can have a positive effect on patient morbidity, their preference, esthetics, and quality of life when utilized for the treatment of mucogingival deformities. Similarly, tissue engineering strategies can reduce the invasiveness and complications of autogenous graft-based staged bone augmentation. More studies incorporating patient-reported outcomes are needed to understand the cost-benefits of tissue engineering strategies compared with traditional treatments.