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 .
Treatment of wide, shallow, and predominantly 1-wall intrabony defects with a bioabsorbable membrane: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
BACKGROUND The regenerative therapy of non-contained intrabony defects achieves better results when bioabsorbable membranes are combined with a filling material . The purpose of the present study was to analyze clinical and radiographic effectiveness of a space-making bioabsorbable membrane in the treatment of wide and shallow intrabony defects characterized by a relevant 1-wall component . METHODS Eighteen pairs of angular bone defects were selected in 18 healthy , non-smoking patients ( age range 30 to 66 years ) . Prior to the surgical phase , patients were enrolled in a strict periodontal program including oral hygiene instructions and scaling and root planing ( presurgical full-mouth plaque score < 10 % ) . Using a split-mouth design , 18 sites were r and omly assigned to receive guided tissue regeneration ( GTR ) using a bioabsorbable membrane ( test group ) and 18 to receive open flap debridement alone ( control group ) . Clinical treatment outcome was evaluated 12 months postoperatively for changes in probing depth ( PD ) , clinical attachment level ( CAL ) , and position of gingival margin ( REC ) and radiographically for bone changes . RESULTS Open flap debridement and GTR yielded statistically significant ( P<0.0001 ) PD reduction ( 2.39+/- 0.92 mm and 3.44+/- 0.78 mm ) , CAL gain ( 1.50+/- 0.99 mm and 2.89 + /- 0.90 mm ) , increased REC ( -0.89 + /- 0.58 mm and -0.56 + /- 0.92 mm ) and bone fill ( 1.05+/- 0.94 mm and 2.13+/- 1.21 mm ) when 12-month data were compared to baseline . The differences between test and control groups were statistically significant for all parameters ( P<0.007 ) except for REC ( P=0.25 ) . CONCLUSION The use of this bioabsorbable membrane would seem to be effective in the treatment of intrabony defects with unfavorable architecture without the use of filling material
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 .