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 .
A prospective multi-center study evaluating periodontal regeneration for Class II furcation invasions and intrabony defects after treatment with a bioabsorbable barrier membrane: 1-year results.
The purpose of this prospect i ve multi-center study was to evaluate a resorbable barrier membrane design ed for periodontal regeneration . Thirty-one Class II furcations and 30 two- and three-wall intrabony defects were treated by flap debridement and bioabsorbable barrier membrane augmentation . The efficacy of treatment was evaluated in terms of changes in vertical probing depth ( PD ) , horizontal probing depth ( HPD ) , clinical attachment levels ( CAL ) , and recession .  Five centers participated in the study . Changes in clinical parameters are reported by individual center and by the average of the centers . All patients had either one molar with a Class II furcation or an intrabony defect . Baseline data were taken on the day of surgery . Post-treatment data were collected at 6 months and 1 year . This report is based on the 1-year findings . The average initial PD for Class II furcations was 6.1 mm . At 1 year the average PD was reduced to 3.6 mm , a 2.5 mm change . These differences were clinical ly and statistically significant ( P < 0.0001 ) . There was an average gain of 2.1 mm of clinical attachment ( P < 0.0001 ) and 0.4 mm of recession ( P < 0.04 ) . There was a mean of 1.8 mm change in HPD ( P < 0.0001 ) . For intrabony defects , at 1 year there was an average PD reduction of 4.1 mm ( P < 0.0001 ) and a mean gain of CAL of 2.9 mm ( P < 0.0001 ) . At 1 year the average recession was 0.9 mm which was statistically significant . When treatment outcomes were compared between centers there were no differences for either group of treated defects . There were differences between centers when baseline PD for furcations and intrabony sites were compared . The results of this study indicate that clinical ly and statistically significant improvements in PD , CAL , and HPD occurred after treatment of Class II furcations and 2- to 3-wall intrabony defects with the bioabsorbable periodontal membrane
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 .