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 .
Clinical and radiographic effects of enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects: a 12-month longitudinal placebo-controlled clinical trial in adult periodontitis patients.
BACKGROUND This r and omized , double-masked , placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluated the effect of enamel matrix derivative ( EMD ) on clinical and radiographic parameters of periodontal intrabony defects . METHODS A split-mouth design was used in 16 chronic periodontitis patients who had similar defects ( > or = 6 mm of probing depth ) . Both groups underwent scaling and root planing and were acid-etched with EDTA . The test sites received the EMD solution and the controls a placebo . Clinical examinations of all 16 patients and radiographs of 14 patients were available at baseline and 6 and 12 months after surgery . Clinical outcomes included probing depth ( PD ) and clinical attachment level ( CAL ) ; radiographic analysis was performed using computerized linear measurements . Intergroup comparisons were performed by paired sample s t test , and over time comparisons were made by general linear model ( alpha = 0.05 ) . RESULTS A statistically significant improvement over time for PD and CAL and a decrease of the vertical component of the defect was detected in both groups . Comparisons between groups revealed at baseline a mean+/-SD value of CAL of 12.93+/-2.00 and 13.47+/-2.93 for test and control groups , respectively . These values decreased to 10.92+/-1.92 and 11.31+/-1.86 after 12 months for test and control . No statistically significant differences could be observed between groups . PD displayed similar results from 7.57+/-1.02 and 7.38+/-1.16 for test and control groups at baseline to 3.40+/-1.82 and 2.99+/-1.07 after 12 months . If the data are divided into smokers and non-smokers , no differences are observed . CONCLUSION Use of EMD did not result in more improvement in clinical and radiographic parameters compared to the placebo
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 .