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 intrabony periodontal defects following treatment with two bioabsorbable membranes in combination with bovine bone mineral graft. A clinical and radiographic study.
AIM Comparison of two bioabsorbable barriers ( collagen and polylactic acid ( PLA ) membranes ) combined with a bovine bone mineral ( BBM ) graft , with an access flap procedure ( AFP ) alone for treating intrabony defects . MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty-four subjects participated in this prospect i ve , controlled clinical trial . Baseline clinical examination ( probing depth ( PD ) , clinical attachment level ( CAL ) ) of selected sites was performed 2 months after completion of conservative treatment in conjunction with hard-tissue measurements to ascertain the depth of the defect ( cementoenamel junction to the bottom of the defects ) . After r and omly dividing patients into three groups ( two membrane groups , one control group ) , full thickness flaps were elevated and exposed root surfaces planed before filling defects with bone graft and positioning a barrier membrane covering the defect . The control group was treated identically except for the barrier and bone graft placement . Clinical treatment outcomes were finally evaluated 12 months after surgery for changes of PD and CAL . Radiographs at baseline and 12 months were compared using non-st and ardized digital radiography . RESULTS A mean reduction in PD value of 5.08 mm and mean CAL gain of 4.39 mm occurred in the collagen-BBM group . Corresponding values for the PLA-BBM group were 4.72 and 3.71 mm , while access flap procedure ( AFP ) sites produced values of 2.50 and 2.43 mm . All improvements in clinical parameters were statistically significant ( p<0.001 ) within groups for all variables . Both membranes produced statistically greater PD reduction and CAL gain compared with AFP treatment ( p<0.05 ) . Comparison between barrier groups failed to reveal any statistically significant difference in probing pocket depth reduction ( p=0.56 ) or in CAL gain ( p=0.34 ) . CONCLUSION Placement of the two barrier membranes used in the present study in combination with BBM graft significantly improved clinical and radiographic parameters of deep intrabony pockets and proved superior to access flap alone
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 .