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 .
Combination use of bovine porous bone mineral, enamel matrix proteins, and a bioabsorbable membrane in intrabony periodontal defects in humans.
BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a combination of enamel matrix proteins ( EMP ) , bovine porous bone mineral ( BPBM ) , and a bioabsorbable membrane for guided tissue regeneration ( GTR ) as regenerative therapy for intrabony defects in humans and compare it to an open flap debridement ( OFD ) technique . METHODS Using a split-mouth design , 18 pairs of intrabony defects were treated and surgically reentered 6 months after the initial surgery . Experimental sites were treated with EMP , grafted with BPBM , and received a collagen/polylactic acid membrane for GTR . Control sites were treated with OFD . The primary outcomes evaluated in the study included probing depth resolution , clinical attachment gain , and bony defect fill . RESULTS Preoperative probing depths , attachment levels , and intraoperative bone measurements were similar for the experimental and control groups . Postsurgical measurements taken at 6 months revealed a significantly greater reduction in probing depth in the experimental group ( 4.95+/-1.52 mm on buccal sites and 4.74+/-1.47 mm on lingual sites ) when compared to the control group ( 2.83+/-0.83 mm on buccal sites and 2.90+/-0.91 mm on lingual sites ) . The experimental sites also presented with significantly more attachment gain ( 3.89+/-1.16 mm on buccal sites and 3.78+/-1.14 mm on lingual sites ) than the control sites ( 1.52+/-0.83 mm on buccal sites and 1.48+/-0.78 mm on lingual sites ) . Surgical reentry of the treated defects revealed a significantly greater amount of defect fill in favor of the experimental group ( 4.76+/-1.36 mm on buccal sites and 4.81+/-1.37 mm on lingual sites ) as compared to the control group ( 1.78+/-0.92 mm on buccal sites and 1.67+/-0.90 mm on lingual sites ) . CONCLUSIONS The results of this study indicate that a combination technique including BPBM , EMP , and GTR results in better clinical resolution of intrabony defects than treatment with OFD . Differences observed were both statistically and clinical ly significant . The exact role of each of the 3 technique components in achieving the clinical improvement observed in this study remains to be determined
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 .