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 .
Periodontal regeneration of human intrabony defects with bioresorbable membranes. A controlled clinical trial.
The purpose of this controlled clinical trial was to compare the clinical efficacy of 3 treatment modalities in the treatment of deep interproximal intrabony defects . Thirty-six ( 36 ) defects in 36 patients were r and omly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups by blocking to prognostic variables . The test was treated with bioresorbable membranes positioned coronal to the interproximal bone crest ; the second group ( membrane control ) was treated with conventional non-resorbable ( ePTFE ) barrier membranes applied coronal to the alveolar crest ; the third group ( flap Control ) was treated with an access flap procedure ( MWF ) . No differences were observed in terms of baseline oral hygiene and defect characteristics among the 3 groups , indicating that the blocking approach was effective . A stringent infection control program was enforced for 1 year . The results indicated that : 1 ) at 1 year all treatment modalities result ed in clinical ly significant improvements in clinical attachment levels ( CAL ) and reductions in probing depths ; 2 ) a statistically significant treatment effect ( P < 0.0001 , ANOVA ) was observed comparing the test ( 4.6 + /- 1.2 mm ) , the membrane control ( 5.2 + /- 1.4 mm ) , and the flap control groups ( 2.3 + /- 0.8 mm ) in terms of CAL gain ; 3 ) differences in terms of CAL gain between the test ( bioresorbable ) and the membrane control ( ePTFE ) groups were not statistically significant ( P = 0.19 , t-test ) ; 4 ) both the test and the membrane control groups gained significantly more CAL at 1 year than the MWF group ( P < 0.0001 , t-test ) . CAL gains > or = 4 mm were observed in 83.3 % of cases in both GTR groups , while CAL gains of this magnitude were not detected in the MWF group . We concluded that clinical ly significant CAL gains can be obtained with GTR procedures using both bioresorbable and non-resorbable membranes . Patients ' morbidity , however , was lower in the group treated with bioresorbable membranes
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 .