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 .
GTR with bioresorbable membranes in the treatment of intrabony defects: a clinical and histologic study.
The aim of the present study was to evaluate clinical ly and histologically the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects with a bioresorbable membrane barrier .  Fifty-two intrabony periodontal defects were treated according to the principles of guided tissue regeneration ( GTR ) with a bioresorbable membrane . Results were evaluated by assessing probing pocket depth , recession of the gingival margin , and clinical attachment level at baseline and at 1 and 2 years after therapy . Bone level changes were evaluated radiographically . The postoperative phase was uneventful in all cases . There was a mean probing pocket depth reduction from 8.4 to 3.6 mm , a mean increase of gingival margin recession from 1.5 to 3.0 mm , and a mean clinical attachment level change from 9.9 to 6.5 mm . Mean attachment gain was 3.4 mm . Two teeth scheduled for extraction were also treated with the same bioresorbable membrane . The histologic analysis 6 months after treatment revealed the formation of new connective tissue attachment and new alveolar bone in both cases . Based on the histologic findings it can be concluded that the clinical improvements following GTR with this type of bioresorbable membrane may represent , at least in part , true periodontal regeneration
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 .