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 .
Healing in periodontal defects treated by decalcified freeze-dried bone allografts in combination with ePTFE membranes (I). Clinical and scanning electron microscope analysis.
This study clinical ly evaluates the use of decalcified freeze-dried bone allograft ( DFDBA ) in conjunction with an exp and ed polytetrafluoroethylene ( ePTFE ) membrane specifically design ed for the treatment of interproximal intraosseous defects . It also examines by SEM , plaque contaminated membranes retrieved from patients . 15 advanced periodontitis patients with two bilateral interproximal probing depths of > or = 6 mm participated . After hygiene phase , measurements were made to determined soft tissue recession , pocket depth , clinical attachment levels and amount of keratinized tissue . Defects from each pair were r and omly treated with ePTFE plus DFDBA ( experimental ) or DFDBA alone ( control ) . Measurements were made during the surgery to determine crestal resorption , defect resolution and defect fill . Membranes were removed at 4 to 6 weeks and analyzed by SEM . Each site was surgically reentered and measurements repeated at six months . Both groups showed clinical and statistically significant changes when compared to baseline ( P < 0.01 ) , but no difference between groups . The experimental group showed increased soft tissue recession vs control group , 0.9 versus 0.4 mm , and loss of keratinized tissue 1.6 versus 0.1 mm ( P < 0.0001 ) . Control sites showed a 58 % bone fill while experimental sites had 70 % bone fill . There were no clear patterns of microbial colonization or cell adherences in either side of the membrane . It was concluded that the presence of plaque on the membranes did not compromise the initial clinical healing during the first 4 - 6 weeks . Results suggest a beneficial effect with the use of either technique for the treatment of intraosseous defects
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 .