+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Comparison of infrabony defects treated with enamel matrix derivative versus guided tissue regeneration with a nonresorbable membrane



Comparison of infrabony defects treated with enamel matrix derivative versus guided tissue regeneration with a nonresorbable membrane



Journal of Clinical Periodontology 30(5): 386-393



The purpose of the present multicenter clinical trial was to compare the efficacy of two different procedures in the treatment of infrabony defects: guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with nonresorbable membranes and enamel matrix derivative (EMD). Six centers participated in this study. Ninety-eight patients with an interproximal infrabony defect were selected. All patients were treated with an initial phase of scaling and root planing, and at the study's baseline the selected defects presented a value of probing depth (PD) > or =6 mm with an infrabony component > or =4 mm. Forty-nine patients were treated with GTR procedures (using ePTFE membranes (Gore-Tex W.L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, AZ, USA)) and forty-nine with EMDs (Emdogain (U Biora AB Malm, Sweden)). The efficacy of each treatment modality was investigated through covariance analysis. The patients were reevaluated at one year postop. Probing attachment level (PAL) gain and PD reduction were analyzed. In the Emdogain group the PAL before surgery (PAL 0) and the PD before surgery (PD 0) were respectively 9.9+/-1.4 and 8.5+/-1.6 mm. The PAL gain and the PD reduction at 1 year postsurgery were respectively 4.1+/-1.8 and 5.3+/-1.9 mm. The group of patients treated with membranes showed that PAL 0 and PD 0 were respectively 8.9+/-1.9 and 8.1+/-1.9. The PAL gain was 4.3+/-1.9 mm and the PD reduction was 5.6+/-1.5 mm. The mean PAL gain expressed by percentage (PAL gain/PAL 0) for the group treated with EMD was 41%, while it was 48% for the group treated with GTR. Results from our analysis suggest that there is no statistically significant difference between GTR and EMD treatments in terms of PAL gain, PD reduction and recession variation. Applying the regression model to a group of patients with a PAL 0 > or =8 mm, we observed a better clinical outcome in terms of PAL gain (difference of 0.3 mm) in patients treated with the GTR procedure compared to those treated with EMD. Covariance analysis showed a strong correlation in both groups of patients between PAL gain and full mouth bleeding score, and between PAL gain and defect morphology and depth.

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 048603697

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 12716329


Related references

Comparison of treatments of infrabony defects with enamel matrix derivative, guided tissue regeneration with a nonresorbable membrane and Widman modified flap. A pilot study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 27(8): 603-610, 2000

Enamel matrix proteins and guided tissue regeneration with titanium-reinforced expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes in the treatment of infrabony defects: a comparative controlled clinical trial. Journal of Periodontology 73(1): 3-12, 2002

Coverage of gingival recession defects using guided tissue regeneration with and without adjunctive enamel matrix derivative in a dog model. International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry 31(3): 247-253, 2011

Enamel matrix derivative and guided tissue regeneration in the treatment of dehiscence-type defects: a histomorphometric study in dogs. Journal of Periodontology 75(10): 1357-1363, 2004

Two-year randomized clinical trial of enamel matrix derivative treated infrabony defects: radiographic analysis. Bmc Oral Health 14(): 149-149, 2015

Treatment of intrabony defects using guided tissue regeneration or enamel matrix derivative: a 3-year prospective randomized clinical study. Journal of Periodontology 79(12): 2281-2289, 2008

Enamel matrix derivative versus guided tissue regeneration in the presence of nicotine: a histomorphometric study in dogs. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 33(12): 900-907, 2006

Enamel matrix derivative in treatment of infrabony defects. Practical Periodontics and Aesthetic Dentistry 11(5): 615-6, 618, 2000

Clinical outcomes after treatment of non-contained intrabony defects with enamel matrix derivative or guided tissue regeneration: a 12-month randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of Periodontology 82(1): 62-71, 2011

Guided tissue regeneration in human Class II furcations and interproximal infrabony defects after using a bioabsorbable membrane barrier. International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry 17(6): 562-573, 1998

Comparison of clinical, radiographic, and histometric measurements following treatment with guided tissue regeneration or enamel matrix proteins in human periodontal defects. Journal of Periodontology 73(4): 409-417, 2002

Guided tissue regeneration procedure with bioresorbable membranes versus conventional flap surgery in the treatment of infrabony periodontal defects. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 27(2): 120-127, 2000

Connective tissue-cementum regeneration: a new histologic regeneration following the use of enamel matrix derivative in dehiscence-type defects. A dog model. International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry 29(4): 425-433, 2009

Clinical evaluation of demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft and enamel matrix derivative versus enamel matrix derivative alone for the treatment of periodontal osseous defects in humans. Journal of Periodontology 75(10): 1309-1318, 2004

Periodontal regeneration in intrabony defects after application of enamel matrix proteins with guided tissue regeneration: an experimental study in dogs. Biomedical Research 26(2): 69-77, 2005