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 .
A comparison between enamel matrix proteins used alone or in combination with bovine porous bone mineral in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects in humans.
BACKGROUND It has been shown that clinical improvement of intrabony periodontal defects can be achieved with the use of enamel matrix proteins ( EMPs ) or by grafting with bovine porous bone mineral ( BPBM ) . There is no report on the potential synergistic effect of EMPs and BPBM in periodontal regenerative therapy . The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of EMPs used alone or in combination with BPBM in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects in humans . METHODS Twenty-one paired intrabony defects were surgically treated using a split-mouth design . Intrabony defects were treated either with enamel matrix proteins ( EMP group ) or with enamel matrix proteins combined with bovine porous bone mineral ( EMP/BPBM group ) . Re-entry surgeries were performed at 6 months . RESULTS Preoperative probing depths , attachment levels , and transoperative bone measurements were similar for the EMP and EMP/BPBM groups . Postsurgical measurements taken at 6 months revealed a significantly greater reduction in probing depth in the EMP/BPBM group ( 3.43 + /- 1.32 mm on buccal sites and 3.36 + /- 1.35 mm on lingual sites ) when compared to the EMP group ( 1.91 + /- 1.42 mm on buccal sites and 1.85 + /- 1.38 mm on lingual sites ) . The EMP/BPBM group also presented with significantly more attachment gain ( 3.13 + /- 1.41 mm on buccal sites and 3.11 + /- 1.39 mm on lingual sites ) than the EMP group ( 1.72 + /- 1.33 mm on buccal sites and 1.75 + /- 1.37 mm on lingual sites ) . Surgical re-entry of the treated defects revealed a significantly greater amount of defect fill in favor of the EMP/BPBM group ( 3.82 + /- 1.43 mm on buccal sites and 3.74 + /- 1.38 mm on lingual sites ) as compared to the EMP group ( 1.33 + /1.17 mm on buccal sites and 1.41 + /- 1.19 mm on lingual sites ) . CONCLUSIONS The results of this study indicate that BPBM has the ability to augment the effects of EMPs in reducing probing depth , improving clinical attachment levels , and promoting defect fill when compared to presurgical levels
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 .