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 .
Healing of intra-bony defects following treatment with a composite bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss Collagen) in combination with a collagen membrane (Bio-Gide PERIO).
AIM The purpose of the present study was to compare clinical ly the treatment of deep intra-bony defects with a combination of a composite bovine-derived xenograft ( BDX Coll ) and a bioresorbable collagen membrane [ guided tissue regeneration ( GTR ) ] to access flap surgery only . METHODS Thirty-two patients , each of whom displayed one intra-bony defect , were treated either with BDX Coll+GTR ( test ) or with access flap surgery ( control ) . The results were evaluated at 1 year following therapy . RESULTS No differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at baseline between the two groups . Healing was uneventful in all patients . At 1 year after therapy , the test group showed a reduction in the mean probing depth ( PD ) from 8.3+/-1.5 to 2.9+/-1.3 mm ( p<0.001 ) and a change in the mean clinical attachment level ( CAL ) from 9.4+/-1.3 to 5.3+/-1.5 mm ( p<0.0001 ) . In the control group , the mean PD was reduced from 8.0+/-1.2 to 4.4+/-1.7 mm ( p<0.001 ) and the mean CAL changed from 9.6+/-1.3 to 7.9+/-1.6 mm ( p<0.01 ) . The test treatment result ed in statistically higher PD reductions ( p < or = 0.05 ) and CAL gains ( p<0.001 ) than the control one . In the test group , all sites ( 100 % ) gained at least 3 mm of CAL . In this group , a CAL gain of 3 or 4 mm was measured at 10 sites ( 62 % ) , whereas at six sites ( 38 % ) , the CAL gain was 5 or 6 mm . In the control group , no CAL gain occurred at three sites ( 19 % ) , whereas at 10 sites ( 62 % ) , the CAL gain was only 1 or 2 mm . A CAL gain of 3 mm was measured in three defects ( 19 % ) . CONCLUSIONS Within the limits of the present study , it can be concluded that the combination of BDX Coll+GTR result ed in significantly higher CAL gains than treatment with access flap surgery alone , and thus appears to be a suitable alternative for treating intra-bony periodontal defects
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 .