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 deep and shallow intrabony defects. A multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial.
This prospective multicenter intra-individual randomized controlled clinical trial was designed to compare the efficacy of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with bioresorbable barrier membranes versus access flap surgery, in intrabony defects. 2 similar defects were selected in each of 23 patients and randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 treatments. Surgery consisted of an identical procedure except for the omission of the barrier membrane in the flap control sites. At 1-year, probing pocket depth reductions were 4.3+/-2.3 mm in GTR treated sites and 3.0+/-1.5 mm in the flap control sites (p=0.02, paired t-test). Clinical attachment level (CAL) gains were 3.0+/-1.7 mm in the GTR sites and 1.6+/-1.8 mm in the control sites (p=0.009, paired t-test). A subset analysis, performed according to the initial depth of the intrabony component of the defects (INFRA), indicated that in shallow defects (INFRA < or =3 mm) treated with the access flap alone, CAL gains were 1+/-1.5 mm, while in deep ones (INFRA > or =4 mm) they were consistently greater (1.9+/-1.9 mm). The % CAL gains, calculated as the % of the baseline intrabony component depth, however, were almost identical in the 2 subpopulations (45.8+/-64.7% in shallow and 43.8+/-37.6% in deep defects). Similarly, in the GTR sites, linear CAL gains were greater in deep (3.7+/-1.7 mm) than in shallow defects (2.2+/-1.3 mm), but no differences were observed in terms of % CAL gains (76.7+/-27.7% and 75.8+/-45%, respectively). The frequency distribution of CAL changes expressed as %s of the baseline INFRA indicates that most of the sites treated with GTR (73% in shallow and 92% in deep defects) gained 50% or more CAL. Furthermore, many defects (64% of shallow and 33% of deep defects) reached 100% of CAL gain. The present study demonstrated that: (i) GTR with bioresorbable barrier membranes resulted in a significant added benefit in comparison with access flap alone; (ii) the linear amounts of CAL gains were greater in deep than in shallow defects; (iii) CAL gains expressed as %s of the baseline depths of the intrabony component, were similar in shallow and deep defects; (iii) the regenerative procedure tested in the present study resulted in CAL gains equal to the depth of the intrabony component of the defect in some, but not in most of the instances.