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 .
The efficacy of enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) for the treatment of deep infrabony periodontal defects: a placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial.
PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy of Emdogain versus placebo ( its carrier ) for the treatment of deep infrabony defects . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Thirty patients with an infrabony defect of at least 4 mm deep and at least 2 mm wide were r and omly allocated for treatment with either Emdogain or placebo ( the Emdogain carrier ) . The treating clinician was completely blinded to the therapy provided and performed all evaluations blindly up to the third year of follow-up . Outcome measures were tooth loss , complications , post-operative healing , patient 's satisfaction with treatment and aesthetics , changes in probing attachment levels ( PAL ) , probing pocket depths ( PPD ) , gingival recessions ( REC ) and radiographic bone levels ( RAD ) . RESULTS One year after treatment , both therapies had significantly improved clinical outcome measures : placebo group PAL gain = 3.3 mm , PPD reduction = 3.9 mm , and RAD gain = 2.5 mm ; Emdogain group PAL gain = 3.4 mm , PPD reduction = 4.2 mm , and RAD gain = 2.5 mm . Both therapies induced statistically significant gingival recession ( 0.6 mm in the placebo and 0.8 mm in the Emdogain group ) . There were no statistically significant differences between groups for any of the outcomes tested . No teeth had to be extracted up to 3 years after treatment . CONCLUSIONS There does not appear to be any clinical advantage when using Emdogain over its carrier ( placebo ) in the treatment of deep and wide infrabony defects
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 .