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 .
The use of 2 bioabsorbable barrier membranes in the treatment of interproximal intrabony periodontal defects.
BACKGROUND The use of barrier membranes in the treatment of periodontal defects is well documented . There has been an increase in the use of bioabsorbable material s which do not require a second surgical procedure for removal . However , there are little data evaluating the efficacy of bioabsorbable membranes in the treatment of intrabony defects . The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the regenerative potential of 2 bioabsorbable barrier membranes without the use of grafting material s in the treatment of interdental intrabony defects . METHODS Twenty-three 2- or 3-walled intrabony defects were treated in 19 patients with a mean age of 50.4 years . All had completed nonsurgical treatment and a period of supportive periodontal therapy . The sites were r and omly chosen to receive a barrier membrane composed of type I bovine collagen ( 11 ) or a copolymer of polylactic acid ( PGA/PLA;12 ) . A pressure sensitive disc probe was used to evaluate the following criteria at baseline and re-entry : 1 ) occlusal surface to the apical depth of probe penetration ( OS-DP ) ; 2 ) occlusal surface to the gingival margin ( OS-GM ) ; 3 ) occlusal surface to the alveolar crest ( OS-AC ) ; and 4 ) occlusal surface to the base of the osseous defect ( OS-BD ) . Full thickness mucoperiosteal flaps were reflected to expose the surgical sites . The defects were debrided of the granulomatous tissue , the root surfaces instrumented and conditioned with 4 one-minute applications of 50 mg/ml of tetracycline . The barrier membranes were adapted to cover the defects and the flaps replaced . The postsurgical healing was uneventful and similar in both treatment modalities . RESULTS Twenty-three sites were surgically re-entered 6 months from the time of the initial surgery . The deepest probe depth for each site was used for statistical analysis . There was a mean relative attachment gain of 2.58+/-1.90 mm for the collagen , and 2.77+/-2.13 mm for the copolymer . There was a decrease in probing depth of 3.27+/-1.91 mm and 0.69+/-1.35 mm of recession for the collagen . The PGA/PLA copolymer had 3.55+/-2.47 mm reduction in probe depth and 0.78+/-1.14 mm of recession . CONCLUSIONS The data indicated the bioabsorbable collagen and copolymer membranes result ed in comparable results . A larger sample size would be necessary to determine if one membrane was superior to the other
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 .