Periodontal regeneration risk assessment in the treatment of intrabony defects

Background Regenerative approaches performed in periodontics seems to be efficient in treating intrabony defects. There are, however, many factors that may affect the predictability of the regenerative procedures. The present article aimed to propose a new risk assessment tool for treating periodont...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical advances in periodontics 2024-09, Vol.14 (3), p.201-210
Hauptverfasser: Levine, Robert A., Saleh, Muhammad H. A., Dias, Debora R., Ganeles, Jeffrey, Araújo, Maurício G., Renouard, Franck, Pinsky, Harold M., Miller, Preston D., Wang, Hom‐Lay
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Regenerative approaches performed in periodontics seems to be efficient in treating intrabony defects. There are, however, many factors that may affect the predictability of the regenerative procedures. The present article aimed to propose a new risk assessment tool for treating periodontal intrabony defects by regenerative therapy. Methods Different variables that could affect the success of a regenerative procedure were considered based on their impact on (i) the wound healing potential, promoting wound stability, cells, and angiogenesis, or (ii) the ability to clean the root surface and maintain an optimal plaque control or (iii) aesthetics (risk for gingival recession). Results The risk assessment variables were divided into a patient, tooth, defect, and operator level. Patient‐related factors included medical conditions such as diabetes, smoking habit, plaque control, compliance with supportive care, and expectations. Tooth‐related factors included prognosis, traumatic occlusal forces or mobility, endodontic status, root surface topography, soft tissue anatomy, and gingival phenotype. Defect‐associated factors included local anatomy (number of residual bone walls, width, and depth), furcation involvement, cleansability, and number of sides of the root involved. Operator‐related factors should not be neglected and included the clinician's level of experience, the presence of environmental stress factors, and the use of checklists in the daily routine. Conclusions Using a risk assessment comprised of patient‐, tooth‐, defect‐ and operator‐level factors can aid the clinician in identifying challenging characteristics and in the treatment decision process.
ISSN:2573-8046
2163-0097
2163-0097
DOI:10.1002/cap.10254