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 .
Evaluation of guided tissue regeneration in interproximal defects. (II). Membrane and bone versus membrane alone.
This study clinical ly evaluates the use of exp and ed polytetrafluoroethylene ( ePTFE ) membranes with or without the addition of decalcified freezedried bone allograft ( DFDBA ) in the treatment of interproximal intraosseous defects . 25 patients ( 26 paired defects ) diagnosed with advanced periodontitis and having at least 2 bilateral interproximal probing depths of > or = 6 mm participated in the study . After the hygiene phase , measurements were made to determine soft tissue recession , pocket depth , and clinical attachment levels . Defects from each pair were r and omly treated with either ePTFE alone ( control ) , or ePTFE+DFDBA ( experimental ) . Measurements were made during the surgery to determine crestal resorption , defect resolution and defect fill . Membranes were removed at 4 to 6 weeks . At 6 months , the soft and hard tissue measurements ( surgical reentry ) were repeated . Both groups showed statistically significant improvement when compared to baseline ( p < 0.001 ) , but no difference was determined between groups . Control sites showed a 50 % bone fill and experimental sites had 54 % bone fill . The defect resolution changes were also similar between control and experimental groups , respectively ( 80 % , 74 % ) . For this short-term study , it was concluded that either technique was beneficial for the treatment of intraosseous defects . Other studies are needed to assess the long-term stability of the improvements rendered by these treatments
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 .