Comparison of Clinical, Radiographic, Histometric Measurements Following Treatment With Guided Tissue Regeneration or Enamel Matrix Proteins in Human Periodontal Defects
- 1 April 2002
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wiley in The Journal of Periodontology
- Vol. 73 (4), 409-417
- https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2002.73.4.409
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic parameters with the histometric findings following 2 different regenerative procedures in humans.Methods: Fourteen advanced intrabony defects at teeth scheduled for extraction were randomly treated as follows: 8 with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) using bioabsorbable barriers and 6 with an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD). Standardized radiographs, probing depths (PD), and attachment levels (CAL) at baseline and 6 months after therapy were evaluated and compared to the histometric measurements made following the removal of teeth and surrounding tissues 6 months after the surgery.Results: Significant PD reductions (GTR: –5.62 mm; EMD: –5.00 mm) and CAL gains (GTR: 3.87 mm; EMD: 2.67 mm) were observed in both groups. Six months after surgery, minor resorptions of the alveolar crest (AC) (GTR: 0.40 mm; EMD: 0.33 mm) and bony gain at the bottom of the defects (GTR: 0.47 mm; EMD: 1.05 mm) were observed radiographically. No statistically significant differences in the change of clinical and radiographic parameters between the GTR and EMD groups were found. Histometrically, significant amounts of new connective tissue attachment (i.e., cementum with inserting collagen fibers) were observed in both groups (GTR: 2.29 mm; EMD: 1.81 mm). Bone regeneration was found to be significant only in the GTR group (GTR: 1.93 mm; EMD: 0.78 mm). However, the study lacked statistical power for determining equivalence between the groups.Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, it may be concluded that at 6 months after GTR or enamel matrix protein derivative therapy, formation of new cementum and bone may be histometrically demonstrated. Except for the formation of new bone, no statistically significant differences between both therapies could be seen for clinical, radiographic, and histometric results 6 months after surgery. J Periodontol 2002;73:409‐417.Keywords
This publication has 43 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Comparative Study Utilizing Open Flap Debridement With and Without Enamel Matrix Derivative in the Treatment of Periodontal Intrabony Defects: A 12‐Month Re‐Entry StudyThe Journal of Periodontology, 2001
- Enamel Matrix Derivative in the Treatment of Human Intrabony Osseous DefectsThe Journal of Periodontology, 2000
- Comparison of treatments of infrabony defects with enamel matrix derivative, guided tissue regeneration with a nonresorbable membrane and Widman modified flapJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 2000
- Comparison of Enamel Matrix Proteins and Bioabsorbable Membranes in the Treatment of Intrabony Periodontal Defects. A Split‐Mouth StudyThe Journal of Periodontology, 1999
- Periodontal regeneration in a buccal dehiscence model in monkeys after application of enamel matrix proteins.Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 1997
- Guided tissue regeneration with non-resorbable and biodegradable barriers: 6 months resultsJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 1997
- Clinical Evaluation of Guided Tissue Regeneration in the Treatment of Maxillary Class II Molar Furcation InvasionsThe Journal of Periodontology, 1991
- Class II Furcations Treated by Guided Tissue Regeneration in Humans: Case ReportsThe Journal of Periodontology, 1990
- New attachment following surgical treatment of human periodontal diseaseJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 1982