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 safety of enamel matrix derivative (EMDOGAIN) in the treatment of periodontal defects.
The aim of the present clinical trial was to test tolerability during 2 treatments with EMDOGAIN in a large number of patients . An open , controlled study design in 10 Swedish specialist clinics was chosen , with a test group of 107 patients treated with EMDOGAIN in connection with periodontal surgery at 2 surgical test sites per patient . The procedures were performed 2 to 6 weeks apart on one-rooted teeth with at least 4 mm deep intraosseous lesions . A control group of 33 patients underwent flap surgery without EMDOGAIN at 1 comparable site . In total , 214 test and 33 control surgeries were performed .  Serum sample s were obtained from test patients for analysis of total and specific antibody levels .  10 of the patients had sample s taken before and after the first surgery , 56 other sample s were taken after one treatment with EMDOGAIN , and 63 after 2 treatments . None of the sample s , not even from allergy-prone patients after 2 treatments , indicated deviations from established baseline ranges . This indicates that the immunogenic potential of EMDOGAIN is extremely low when applied in conjunction with periodontal surgery . Comparison between the test and control groups demonstrated the same type and frequency of postsurgical experiences , i.e. , reactions caused by the surgical procedure itself . Clinical probing and radiographic evaluation was performed at baseline and 8 months postsurgery . About half of the patients ( 44 test and 21 control ) were also evaluated after 3 years . There was a significant difference between the test and control results at 8 months postsurgery , and this difference had increased further at the 3 year follow-up . The 2.5 - 3 mm increase in attachment and bone level after treatment with EMDOGAIN was of the same magnitude as seen in the studies with split-mouth design aim ing for test of effectiveness of EMDOGAIN
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 .