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 .
Assessment of guided tissue regeneration procedures in intrabony defects with bioabsorbable and non-resorbable barriers.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY was to assess periodontal regenerative techniques in intrabony defects utilizing a bioabsorbable , polylactic acid ( PLA ) barrier or the non-resorbable , exp and ed polytetrafluoroethylene ( ePTFE ) barrier .  Thirty patients ( 26 to 64 years old ) each with one radiographically evident intrabony periodontal lesion of probing depth > or = 6 mm participated in a 12-month controlled clinical trial . The subjects were r and omly divided into two independent groups . The test group ( n = 16 ) received a PLA barrier . The control group ( n = 14 ) received an ePTFE barrier .  Plaque index ( PI ) , gingival index ( GI ) , probing depth ( PD ) , clinical attachment level ( CAL ) , and bone fill were recorded by a single calibrated examiner not involved with the surgical treatment prior to surgery , and at 6 , 9 , and 12 months postsurgery . The treatment results were statistically analyzed utilizing two sets of data . The " averaged-site " data set consisted of values computed from the averaging of measurements from all sites encompassing the defect . The second data set was comprised of only the deepest measurement of the defect . Statistical tests used to analyze these data sets included the t-test and paired t-test for parametric data and the Wilcoxon rank sum test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test for non-parametric data . Analyses with both the averaged-site data and deepest-site data result ed in significant improvements in PD reductions , CAL , and bone fill , after 12 months of healing with both the PLA and ePTFE barrier devices . Comparisons of healing response between treatments found no significant differences when the averaged-site data were analyzed . When only the deepest site of the defect was considered , the control group result ed in significantly more attachment gain ( ePTFE , 3.36 mm ; PLA , 1.75 mm ; P < 0.02 ) and shallower probing depths ( ePTFE , 3.29 mm ; PLA , 4.69 mm ; P < 0.01 ) than the test group . In intrabony defects , the use of PLA or ePTFE barriers in GTR procedures yielded comparable clinical results ; however , in this study , data analysis using the deepest site of the defect found , after 12 months of healing , significantly more attachment gain and shallower probing depths with ePTFE
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 .