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.
Treatment of intrabony defects with enamel matrix proteins and guided tissue regeneration. A prospective controlled clinical study.
Utilisation of enamel matrix proteins (EMD) and application of the guided tissue regeneration principle (GTR) are treatment modalities which both have been shown to result in periodontal regeneration. However, it is yet unknown whether the combination of EMD and GTR may additionally favor the regeneration process.
                The aim of the present controlled study was to evaluate clinically the treatment effect of EMD, GTR, combination of EMD and GTR, and flap surgery (control) on intrabony defects.
                56 patients each of whom displaying one intrabony defect of a depth of at least 6 mm were randomly treated with one of the treatment modalities. Prior to surgery and at one year after, the following parameters were evaluated by a blinded examiner: Plaque index (PlI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depth (PPD), gingival recession (GR) and clinical attachment level (CAL). No statistical significant differences between the four groups were observed at baseline for any of the investigated parameters.
                At 1 year after therapy, the sites treated with EMD demonstrated a mean PPD reduction of 4.1 +/- 1.7 mm and a mean CAL gain of 3.4 +/- 1.5 mm (p<0.001). The sites treated with GTR showed a mean PPD reduction of 4.2 +/- 1.9 mm and a mean CAL gain of 3.1 +/- 1.5 mm (p<0.001). The sites treated with the combined treatment showed a mean PPD reduction of 4.3 +/- 1.4 mm and a mean CAL gain of 3.4 +/- 1.1 mm (p<0.001). In the control group, the mean PPD reduction was 3.7 +/- 1.4 mm (p<0.001) and the mean CAL gain measured 1.7 +/- 1.5 mm (p<0.01). All 4 treatments led to statistically significant PPD reduction and CAL gain. All three regenerative treatments led to higher CAL gain than the control treatment (p<0.05). No statistical significant differences in PPD reduction and CAL gain were observed between the three regenerative treatments.
                It may be concluded that (a) all 3 regenerative treatment modalities may lead to higher CAL gain than the control one, and (b) the combined treatment does not seem to improve the outcome of the regenerative procedure.