In conclusion , follow-up time ( < or > 2 years ) and the risk of bias influence the results of treatment with EMDP in IPD
Previous systematic review s have demonstrated better results with enamel matrix derivative proteins ( EMDP ) as compared with open flap debridement ( OFD ) for the management of infrabony periodontal defects ( IPD ) .
The aim of this study was to determine whether these differences vary according to the follow-up and quality of the studies .
A comparative study utilizing open flap debridement with and without enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects: a 12-month re-entry study.
BACKGROUND Previous studies have demonstrated that enamel matrix derivative ( EMD ) has the ability to improve clinical parameters when used to treat intraosseous defects . The purpose of the present study was to compare at 12 months postsurgery sites treated with open flap debridement ( OFD ) alone to those treated with OFD and EMD . METHODS Twenty-three subjects with at least 2 intrabony defects were chosen . Fifty-three defects received EMD in conjunction with OFD .  Thirty-one defects in these same 23 subjects were treated with OFD alone . Stents were fabricated to serve as fixed reference points . Re-entries were performed at least 1 year after initial surgery . Soft tissue measurements were recorded prior to initial surgery and prior to re-entry for gingival ( GI ) and plaque ( PI ) indices , probing depth ( PD ) , gingival margin position , and clinical attachment level ( CAL ) . Hard tissue measurements were recorded during the initial and re-entry surgery for level of crestal bone and depth of defect . Statistical analysis was conducted using the method of generalized estimating equations to determine changes in GI , PI , PD , CAL , fill of the osseous defect , and crestal resorption . Percent of defect fill was also calculated . RESULTS In all categories , treatment with EMD ( test ) was superior to treatment without EMD ( control ) . Average PI and GI were not significantly different either initially or prior to re-entry . The average PD reduction was 2.7 mm greater with EMD than controls . The average CAL gains were 1.5 mm greater , and the average fill of osseous defect 2.4 mm greater with EMD than controls . The average percent of defect fill after adjusting for crestal bone loss was more than 3 times greater for EMD versus control-treated sites ( 74 % defect fill with EMD versus 23 % defect fill for control sites ) . CONCLUSIONS This study indicates that treatment of periodontal intraosseous defects with EMD is clinical ly superior to treatment without EMD ( open flap debridement ) in every parameter evaluated . Re-entry data demonstrate that percent fill of osseous defects treated with EMD compares favorably with the treatment results utilizing bone grafts or membrane barriers , according to published literature
In conclusion , follow-up time ( < or > 2 years ) and the risk of bias influence the results of treatment with EMDP in IPD
Previous systematic review s have demonstrated better results with enamel matrix derivative proteins ( EMDP ) as compared with open flap debridement ( OFD ) for the management of infrabony periodontal defects ( IPD ) .
The aim of this study was to determine whether these differences vary according to the follow-up and quality of the studies .