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 .
Periodontal regeneration of human intrabony defects with titanium reinforced membranes. A controlled clinical trial.
The purpose of this controlled clinical trial was to compare the clinical efficacy of 3 treatment modalities in the treatment of deep interproximal intrabony defects . Forty-five ( 45 ) defects in 45 patients were r and omly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups by blocking to prognostic variables . The test group was treated with titanium reinforced membranes positioned just apical to the cemento-enamel junction and the modified papilla preservation technique ; the second group received conventional exp and ed polytetrafluoroethylene ( ePTFE ) barrier membranes applied at the alveolar crest ; the third group was treated with an access flap procedure . The groups were well balanced with respect to all prognostic variables . During the 1-year observation period , patients were subjected to a stringent infection control program including : professional tooth cleaning every week for the first 6 weeks ( all groups ) and in the 4 weeks following membrane removal ( guided tissue regeneration groups ) , then at monthly intervals ( all groups ) . The results indicated that : 1 ) all treatment modalities result ed in clinical and statistically significant improvements in clinical attachment level ( CAL ) and probing depths ( PD ) at 1 year ; 2 ) a significantly greater amount of CAL gain ( P = 0.0003 , analysis of variance ) was observed in the test group ( 5.3 + /- 2.2 mm ) with respect to both the ePTFE group ( 4.1 + /- 1.8 mm ) and the flap control group 2.5 + /- 0.8 ; 3 ) in the test group the 1 year CAL ( 4.7 + /- 1.8 mm ) was located more coronally than the baseline position of the interproximal alveolar crest ( 5.9 + /- 2 mm ; P = 0.003 , t test ) . ( ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS
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 .