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 .
Clinical comparison of resorbable and non-resorbable barriers for guided periodontal tissue regeneration.
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of guided periodontal tissue regeneration ( GPTR ) using a resorbable barrier manufactured from a copolymer of polylactic and polyglycolic acids ( Resolut Regenerative Material ) with those of non-resorbable e-PTFE barrier ( Gore-Tex Periodontal Material ) .  12 subjects participated , 6 with similarly paired class II furcations and 6 with 2 similar 2 , 3-wall periodontal lesions . The resorbable and non-resorbable barriers were r and omly assigned to 1 defect in each subject . Non-resorbable barriers were removed in six weeks . Plaque index ( PlI ) , gingival index ( GI ) , probing depth ( PD ) , clinical attachment level ( CAL ) and gingival recession ( R ) were recorded at baseline , ( i.e. , immediately prior to surgery ) and at 12 months postsurgically . The clinical healing was similar and uneventful in both groups . Intrabony pockets depicted significant changes from baseline ( p < 0.05 ) for probing depth reduction and gain in clinical attachment levels . No differences were found between treatments . Class II furcations showed significant improvements from baseline ( p < or = 0.05 ) for probing depth reduction and clinical attachment gain . No differences were detected between treatments . It is concluded that the resorbable barrier tested is as effective as the nonresorbable e-PTFE barrier for the treatment of class II furcations and intrabony 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 .