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 .
Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene and dental rubber dam barrier membranes in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects. A comparative clinical trial.
As observed in previous case reports , dental rubber dam ( DRD ) can be utilized as a barrier membrane in the guided tissue regeneration ( GTR ) technique for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects . The purpose of the present study was ( 1 ) to confirm the validity of DRD as a suitable material in regenerative procedures and ( 2 ) to compare , in a split-mouth clinical trial , the effectiveness of DRD-made membranes in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects versus that of exp and ed polytetrafluoroethylene ( e-PTFE ) barriers .  22 systemically healthy non-smoker adult periodontitis patients ( 7 male , 15 female ) aged between 35 to 58 years were selected for the study . In each patient , a couple of 2 - 3 wall intrabony defects , located in different quadrants , were treated by a GTR technique using DRD ( test sites ) and e-PTFE ( control sites ) , respectively . Performing a strict control of the oral hygiene level and of the marginal gingival health during the whole period of study , clinical ( pocket probing depth , PPD ; probing attachment level , PAL ; gingival recession , GR ) and intrasurgical ( depth of the defect 's intraosseous component , IOC ; level of the alveolar crest , ACL ) parameters were recorded at baseline and at the 1-year re-entry procedure in each experimental site . Furthermore , the coronal level of the newly formed tissue from the base of the defect ( NFTL ) and the vertical bone gain ( VBG ) were calculated at the time of membrane removal and after the re-entry procedure respectively . Membranes were removed from both test and control sites after 5 weeks ; however , exposure of the membrane always occurred in test sites whereas it was observed in only 6 out of 22 control sites , this fact leading to an incomplete coverage of the regenerated tissue by the gingival flap in 18 out of 22 test sites . In both test and control sites , a statistically significant improvement of clinical and intrasurgical parameters occurred at the end of the study period ; however , a significantly greater improvement was observed in control sites for PAL ( + 4.0 mm versus + 3.0 mm ; p<0.05 ) and VBG ( 3.9 mm versus 2.9 mm ; p<0.05 ) although at the time of membrane removal , NFTL was similar between the experimental sites ( test : 5.8 ; control : 5.6 ; p>0.05 ) . Conversely , test sites exhibited a statistically significant greater increase in gingival recession ( + 1.9 versus + 1.2 ; p<0.05 ) and alveolar crest resorption ( -1.1 versus -0.3 , p<0.01 ) in comparison to controls . It was concluded that ( 1 ) DRD is a suitable material to be used as a barrier membrane in GTR procedures although ( 2 ) e-PTFE membranes can provide a greater improvement in PAL and VBG , probably because of the difficulty in completely covering the regenerated tissue due to the fact that the gingival tissues have undergone a consistent recession in DRD-treated sites . Further studies are needed to demonstrate if an adequate coverage of the regenerated tissue in DRD-treated sites can eliminate these differences
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 .