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 .
Guided tissue regeneration in human Class II furcations and interproximal infrabony defects after using a bioabsorbable membrane barrier.
This study clinical ly evaluated a bioabsorbable barrier membrane design ed for periodontal regeneration . Ten Class II furcations and 12 interproximal infrabony defects were treated by flap debridement and placement of a bioabsorbable barrier membrane using the principles of guided tissue regeneration . Treatment was evaluated in terms of changes in vertical probing depth , horizontal attachment level , clinical attachment level , and recession . Baseline data were collected on the day of surgery , and outcome measurements were performed at the 1-year appointment . The mean initial probing depth for Class II furcations was 6.5 mm . At 1 year , the mean probing depth was reduced to 2.9 mm , a 3.6 mm change . These differences were clinical ly and statistically significant ( P < 0.01 ) . There was a mean gain of 2.4 mm in clinical attachment level ( P < 0.01 ) and a mean 3.4-mm change in horizontal attachment level ( P < 0.01 ) . Recession increased 1.2 mm . For interproximal infrabony defects , there was a mean probing depth reduction of 5.0 mm ( P < 0.01 ) , a mean gain of clinical attachment level of 3.8 mm ( P < 0.02 ) , and a mean increase of 1.2 mm in recession ( P < 0.04 ) . The results indicate that significant improvements occurred after treatment of Class II furcations and interproximal infrabony defects with the use of a bioabsorbable barrier membrane and guided tissue regeneration
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 .