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 .
Comparison of infrabony defects treated with enamel matrix derivative versus guided tissue regeneration with a nonresorbable membrane.
AIM The purpose of the present multicenter clinical trial was to compare the efficacy of two different procedures in the treatment of infrabony defects :  guided tissue regeneration ( GTR ) with nonresorbable membranes and enamel matrix derivative ( EMD ) . MATERIAL AND METHODS Six centers participated in this study . Ninety-eight patients with an interproximal infrabony defect were selected . All patients were treated with an initial phase of scaling and root planing , and at the study 's baseline the selected defects presented a value of probing depth ( PD ) > or = 6 mm with an infrabony component > or = 4 mm . Forty-nine patients were treated with GTR procedures ( using ePTFE membranes ( Gore-Tex W.L. Gore and Associates , Flagstaff , AZ , USA ) ) and forty-nine with EMDs ( Emdogain ( U Biora AB Malm , Sweden ) ) . The efficacy of each treatment modality was investigated through covariance analysis . RESULTS The patients were reevaluated at one year postop . Probing attachment level ( PAL ) gain and PD reduction were analyzed . In the Emdogain group the PAL before surgery ( PAL 0 ) and the PD before surgery ( PD 0 ) were respectively 9.9+/-1.4 and 8.5+/-1.6 mm . The PAL gain and the PD reduction at 1 year postsurgery were respectively 4.1+/-1.8 and 5.3+/-1.9 mm . The group of patients treated with membranes showed that PAL 0 and PD 0 were respectively 8.9+/-1.9 and 8.1+/-1.9 . The PAL gain was 4.3+/-1.9 mm and the PD reduction was 5.6+/-1.5 mm . The mean PAL gain expressed by percentage ( PAL gain/PAL 0 ) for the group treated with EMD was 41 % , while it was 48 % for the group treated with GTR . Results from our analysis suggest that there is no statistically significant difference between GTR and EMD treatments in terms of PAL gain , PD reduction and recession variation . Applying the regression model to a group of patients with a PAL 0 > or = 8 mm , we observed a better clinical outcome in terms of PAL gain ( difference of 0.3 mm ) in patients treated with the GTR procedure compared to those treated with EMD . Covariance analysis showed a strong correlation in both groups of patients between PAL gain and full mouth bleeding score , and between PAL gain and defect morphology and depth
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 .