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 .
Guided tissue regeneration in the treatment of human infrabony defects. Clinical, radiographical and microbiological results: a pilot study.
The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical , radiographical and microbiological outcome after using guided tissue regeneration ( GTR ) with a bioabsorbable membrane , Resolut . Subjects with bilateral infrabony defects at single rooted teeth were selected . A total of 22 teeth , 2 in each 1 of 7 patients and 4 in 2 patients , with probing pocket depth > or = 5 mm , 3 months after scaling , participated . At baseline , assessment s of plaque and gingival indices , bleeding on probing , probing pocket depth and probing attachment level were recorded and reproducible radiographs for computer-based bone level measurements were taken . Bacterial sample s were collected to investigate the presence of periodontitis-associated bacteria , e.g. , Porphyromonas/Prevotella- and Fusobactrium-like micro-organisms . One tooth was r and omly treated with GTR and the contralateral with an open debridement procedure as a control . Clinical , radiographical and microbiological examinations were repeated 6 and 12 months postoperatively . Both procedures demonstrated a statistically significant improvement of gingival conditions , reduction of pocket depths and gain of attachment . When evaluating the differences between test and control teeth , none of the clinical parameters yielded statistical difference . Computer-based bone-level measurements showed only small differences in the majority of both test and control sites . The differences were not significant . Periodontitis-associated bacteria were present at baseline , but the appearance was not related to any specific site or patient and did not demonstrate any unwanted change in the 6- and 12-month sample s. The findings suggest that the clinical , radiographical and microbiological improvements were not significantly enhanced with the GTR therapy
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 .