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 of human intrabony defects following regenerative periodontal therapy with an enamel matrix protein derivative alone or combined with a bioactive glass. A controlled clinical study.
AIM The purpose of the present study was to compare clinical ly the treatment of deep intrabony defects with a combination of an enamel matrix protein derivative ( EMD ) and a bioactive glass ( BG ) to EMD alone . METHODS Thirty patients ( 16 females and 14 males ) suffering from advanced marginal periodontitis were included in this prospect i ve , controlled parallel design multicenter study . In each of the patients , one intrabony defect was r and omly treated with either EMD+BG ( test ) or with EMD alone ( control ) . Clinical measurements were recorded at baseline and at 1 year following therapy . RESULTS No differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at baseline between the two groups . Healing was uneventful in all patients . At 1 year after therapy , the test group showed a reduction in mean probing depth ( PD ) from 8.5+/-1.1 to 4.4+/-1.2 mm ( p<0.001 ) and a change in mean clinical attachment level ( CAL ) from 10.4+/-1.5 to 7.1+/-1.5 mm ( p<0.0001 ) . In the control group , the mean PD was reduced from 8.5+/-1.5 to 4.0+/-1.6 mm ( p<0.001 ) and the mean CAL changed from 10.2+/-2.1 to 6.3+/-2.2 mm ( p<0.01 ) . In the test group , 12 sites ( 80 % ) gained at least 3 mm or more of CAL , whereas in the control group a CAL gain of 3 mm or more was measured at 13 sites ( 87 % ) . No statistically significant differences in terms of PD reduction and CAL gain were found between the test and the control treatment . CONCLUSIONS Within the limits of the present study it can be concluded that : ( i ) at 1 year after surgery , both therapies result ed in significant PD reductions and CAL gains , and ( ii ) the combination of EMD+BG does not seem to additionally improve the clinical results
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 .