GTR has a greater effect on probing measures of periodontal treatment than open flap debridement, including improved attachment gain, reduced pocket depth, less increase in gingival recession and more gain in hard tissue probing at re-entry surgery. However there is marked variability between studies and the clinical relevance of these changes is unknown. As a result, it is difficult to draw general conclusions about the clinical benefit of GTR. Whilst there is evidence that GTR can demonstrate a significant improvement over conventional open flap surgery, the factors affecting outcomes are unclear from the literature and these might include study conduct issues such as bias. Therefore, patients and health professionals need to consider the predictability of the technique compared with other methods of treatment before making final decisions on use. Since trial reports were often incomplete, we recommend that future trials should follow the CONSORT statement both in their conduct and reporting. 
There is therefore little value in future research repeating simple, small efficacy studies. The priority should be to identify factors associated with improved outcomes as well as investigating outcomes relevant to patients. Types of research might include large observational studies to generate hypotheses for testing in clinical trials, qualitative studies on patient-centred outcomes and trials exploring innovative analytic methods such as multilevel modelling. Open flap surgery should remain the control comparison in these studies.
Periodontal regeneration of human intrabony defects with bioresorbable membranes. A controlled clinical trial.
The purpose of this controlled clinical trial was to compare the clinical efficacy of 3 treatment modalities in the treatment of deep interproximal intrabony defects. Thirty-six (36) defects in 36 patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups by blocking to prognostic variables. The test was treated with bioresorbable membranes positioned coronal to the interproximal bone crest; the second group (membrane control) was treated with conventional non-resorbable (ePTFE) barrier membranes applied coronal to the alveolar crest; the third group (flap Control) was treated with an access flap procedure (MWF). No differences were observed in terms of baseline oral hygiene and defect characteristics among the 3 groups, indicating that the blocking approach was effective. A stringent infection control program was enforced for 1 year. The results indicated that: 1) at 1 year all treatment modalities resulted in clinically significant improvements in clinical attachment levels (CAL) and reductions in probing depths; 2) a statistically significant treatment effect (P < 0.0001, ANOVA) was observed comparing the test (4.6 +/- 1.2 mm), the membrane control (5.2 +/- 1.4 mm), and the flap control groups (2.3 +/- 0.8 mm) in terms of CAL gain; 3) differences in terms of CAL gain between the test (bioresorbable) and the membrane control (ePTFE) groups were not statistically significant (P = 0.19, t-test); 4) both the test and the membrane control groups gained significantly more CAL at 1 year than the MWF group (P < 0.0001, t-test). CAL gains > or = 4 mm were observed in 83.3% of cases in both GTR groups, while CAL gains of this magnitude were not detected in the MWF group. We concluded that clinically significant CAL gains can be obtained with GTR procedures using both bioresorbable and non-resorbable membranes. Patients' morbidity, however, was lower in the group treated with bioresorbable membranes.