Recombinant Amelogenin as a Potential Alternative to Enamel Matrix Derivatives in Periodontal Regeneration: A Scoping Review of Its Biological Activity, Synthesis and Delivery Systems

TL;DR

This review explores recombinant amelogenin as a potential alternative to enamel matrix derivatives for periodontal regeneration, focusing on its biological activity and delivery methods.

Contribution

The paper provides a scoping review of recombinant amelogenin's regenerative potential, highlighting its synthesis and delivery systems for periodontal applications.

Findings

Recombinant amelogenin shows consistent preclinical biological activity for periodontal regeneration.

Most studies used direct dissolution in culture media, with fewer using hydrogels or scaffolds for delivery.

Evidence remains preclinical and heterogeneous, requiring standardized models and comparisons with existing therapies.

Abstract

The objective of this review is to evaluate the existing literature on the regenerative potential of recombinant amelogenin, with a particular emphasis on the biological activity, synthesis, and delivery systems relevant to periodontal regeneration.

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science to identify studies on recombinant amelogenin for periodontal regeneration. Inclusion criteria encompassed in vitro and animal model studies reporting on cellular growth, regeneration markers, tissue repair and clinical improvements. Data extraction focused on study design, protein source, delivery system, experimental model, and reported biological outcomes. The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA‐ScR guidelines and supplemented by a narrative synthesis of the preclinical literature.

The literature search included 23 studies comprising predominantly preclinical cell culture and in vivo mouse studies. Recombinant amelogenin was evaluated across diverse experimental systems and delivery methods, most frequently by direct dissolution in culture media, with fewer studies using injectable hydrogels or scaffold‑based carriers. Although most investigations reported biological activity attributable to recombinant amelogenin, the outcome measures, experimental models, and formulation strategies varied substantially, limiting direct comparison across studies.

Recombinant amelogenin shows consistent preclinical activity supporting its biological plausibility as a regenerative agent. However, evidence remains largely preclinical and heterogeneous. Future studies should employ standardised models, optimised delivery systems, and direct comparisons with established therapies to clarify its translational potential in periodontal regeneration.

Figures