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 comparison of an enamel matrix derivative used alone or in combination with a bovine-derived xenograft for the treatment of periodontal osseous defects in humans.
BACKGROUND The combination of bone replacement graft material s has been suggested for the treatment of periodontal osseous defects . The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of enamel matrix derivative ( EMD ) combined with a bovine-derived xenograft ( BDX ) as compared to EMD alone in the treatment of intraosseous defects in patients with moderate to advanced periodontitis . METHODS Sixteen adult patients with at least 2 intrabony defects were entered in this split-mouth design study . Defects were treated with EMD alone or EMD + BDX . Reentries were performed 6 to 8 months after initial surgery . The following soft and hard tissue measurements were recorded prior to initial surgery and at reentry : probing depth ( PD ) , gingival margin location , clinical attachment level ( CAL ) , depth of defect , and crestal bone level . Statistical analyses were performed to determine changes in PD , CAL , fill of osseous defect , and crestal resorption . Percentages of bone fill ( % BF ) and defect resolution ( % DR ) were also calculated . RESULTS The most significant results were that gingival recession was greater for the group treated with EMD alone ( 0.8 + /- 0.8 mm ) compared to EMD + BDX ( 0.3 + /- 0.6 mm ) ( P = 0.04 ) and bone fill was greater for EMD + BDX ( 4.0 + /- 0.8 mm ) compared to EMD alone ( 3.1 + /- 1.0 mm ) ( P = 0.02 ) . The measures for PD reduction , attachment level gain , crestal resorption , % BF , and % DR did not present a statistically significant difference ( P > 0.10 ) . CONCLUSIONS This study evaluated the performance of EMD + BDX and EMD alone . The results demonstrated that a significant improvement in clinical parameters was observed . When comparing both modalities , a statistically significant difference was only found for gingival recession and bone fill , yielding a more favorable outcome towards the combined approach
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 .