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 calcium sulfate and autogenous bone graft to bioabsorbable membranes plus autogenous bone graft in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects: a split-mouth study.
BACKGROUND Current literature shows that calcium sulfate can be used in guided tissue regeneration . Its biocompatibility and resorbability give it significant advantages in the treatment of periodontal and endodontic defects . Clinical ly guided tissue regeneration procedures have demonstrated significant positive clinical change , beyond that achieved with debridement alone , in treating intraosseous defects . The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the clinical results obtained with autologous bone plus calcium sulfate , and to compare them with the results obtained using autologous bone plus membrane . METHODS A total of 12 patients were treated in the present investigation . A split-mouth design was utilized . Twelve 3-wall periodontal defects were treated with calcium sulfate plus autologous bone graft ( test ) and compared with 12 contra-lateral defects treated with a bioabsorbable membrane plus autologous bone graft ( control ) . Before the surgical procedure , patients were instructed about oral hygiene and scaling and root planing ( SRP ) was completed . Probing depth ( PD ) , clinical attachment level ( CAL ) , and bleeding on probing ( BOP ) were recorded at baseline and 6 months . RESULTS There were no statistical differences between test and control defects at baseline . BOP was 58 % and 50 % for control and test defects , respectively . Mean PD was 7.75+/-0.96 mm ( control ) and 8.0+/-1.28 mm ( test ) . Mean CAL was 8.58+/-1.31 mm ( control ) and 8.83+/-0.91 mm ( test ) . At 6 months , mean PD was 3.41+/-0.51 ( P = 0.0022 ) for control defects and 3.58+/-0.51 ( P = 0.0022 ) for test defects . CAL showed a mean gain of 5+/-0.85 for controls ( P = 0.0022 ) and 5.25+/-0.75 for test defects ( P = 0.0022 ) . Thus , there was a mean reduction of PD of 4.33 mm ( 56 % ) for control sites and 4.42 mm ( 55 % ) for test sites . The mean clinical attachment gain was 3.57 mm for control sites and 3.58 mm for test sites . As there were no sham-operated controls , it is not clear that the healing of these test or control-treated sites was any better than similar 3-walled defects sham operated . CONCLUSIONS Both therapies led to short-term improvement of the measured parameters ; neither was superior to the other
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 .