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 .
Clinical evaluation of an enamel matrix protein derivative combined with a bioactive glass for the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects in humans.
BACKGROUND The purpose of the present study was to compare the treatment of deep intrabony defects with a combination of an enamel matrix protein derivative ( EMD ) and a bioactive glass ( BG ) to BG alone . METHODS Twenty-eight patients with chronic periodontitis , each of whom displayed 1 intrabony defect , were r and omly treated with a combination of EMD and BG or with BG alone .  Soft tissue measurements were made at baseline and at 1 year following therapy . RESULTS No differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at baseline between the 2 groups . Healing was uneventful in all patients . At 1 year after therapy , the sites treated with EMD and BG showed a reduction in mean probing depth ( PD ) from 8.07 + /- 1.14 mm to 3.92 + /- 0.73 mm and a change in mean clinical attachment level ( CAL ) from 9.64 + /- 1.59 mm to 6.42 + /- 1.08 mm ( P < 0.0001 ) . In the group treated with BG , the mean PD was reduced from 8.07 + /- 1.32 mm to 3.85 + /- 0.66 mm and the mean CAL changed from 9.78 + /- 1.71 mm to 6.71 + /- 1.89 mm ( P < 0.0001 ) . No statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed between the test and control group . CONCLUSIONS Within the limits of the present study , it can be concluded that both therapies led to significant improvements of the investigated clinical parameters , and the combination of enamel matrix derivative and bioactive glass does not seem to additionally improve the clinical outcome of the therapy
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 .