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.
Comparison of treatments of infrabony defects with enamel matrix derivative, guided tissue regeneration with a nonresorbable membrane and Widman modified flap. A pilot study.
The purpose of the present study was to compare the efficacy of 3 different surgical procedures in the treatment of infrabony defects: guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with non-resorbable membranes, Widman modified flap (WMF) and enamel matrix derivative (EMD).
                30 patients with an infrabony component > or = 4 mm were selected. 10 were treated with expanded polytetrafluorethylene (ePTFE (Gore - Tex W. L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, AZ, USA)) membranes, 10 with WMF and 10 with enamel matrix derivatives (Emdogain (U Biora AB Malm, Sweden)). The efficacy of each treatment modality was investigated through regression analysis. Probing attachment level (PAL) gain, probing depth (PD) reduction and gingival recession (REC) variation were analyzed.
                Both Emdogain (enamel matrix derivative) and ePTFE treatment show significant better results as compared to the WMF procedure in which there were no significant changes in PAL gain and PD reduction at baseline and 1 year after surgery.
                Results from our analysis suggest that there is no statistically significant difference in PAL gain between GTR and EMD. The clinical outcomes of this pilot study may be of little significance, considering the small number of patients, but it has provided an important base for a controlled clinical trial (with a larger number of patients) which is currently in progress.