In most respects , all membranes and enamel matrix derivative ( EMD ) delivered better outcomes , in the range of 1 to 2 mm , than open flap debridement .
The use of any barrier type or EMD configuration was found to yield more Clinical Attachment Level ( CAL ) gain than any open flap configuration .
GTR was confirmed to be superior to open flap debridement
In a 1998 review article , Laurell and colleagues performed a meta- analysis of relevant guided tissue regeneration ( GTR ) articles over the previous 20 years ( 1 ) .
The purpose of the present research was to exp and on that work , particularly search ing for trends discriminating between bioabsorbable and non-bioabsorbable barriers , as well as the use of enamel matrix derivative , with respect to interproximal bony defects .
Comparison of treatments of infrabony defects with enamel matrix derivative, guided tissue regeneration with a nonresorbable membrane and Widman modified flap. A pilot study.
BACKGROUND , AIMS 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 ) . METHOD 30 patients with an infrabony component > or = 4 mm were selected . 10 were treated with exp and ed 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 . RESULTS 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 . CONCLUSIONS 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
In most respects , all membranes and enamel matrix derivative ( EMD ) delivered better outcomes , in the range of 1 to 2 mm , than open flap debridement .
The use of any barrier type or EMD configuration was found to yield more Clinical Attachment Level ( CAL ) gain than any open flap configuration .
GTR was confirmed to be superior to open flap debridement
In a 1998 review article , Laurell and colleagues performed a meta- analysis of relevant guided tissue regeneration ( GTR ) articles over the previous 20 years ( 1 ) .
The purpose of the present research was to exp and on that work , particularly search ing for trends discriminating between bioabsorbable and non-bioabsorbable barriers , as well as the use of enamel matrix derivative , with respect to interproximal bony defects .