Clinical Comparison of an Enamel Matrix Derivative Used Alone or in Combination With a Bovine‐Derived Xenograft for the Treatment of Periodontal Osseous Defects in Humans
Background: The combination of bone replacement graft materials has been suggested for the treatment of periodontal osseous defects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) combined with a bovine‐derived xenograft (BDX) as compared to EMD alone i...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of periodontology (1970) 2002-04, Vol.73 (4), p.433-440 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 440 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 433 |
container_title | Journal of periodontology (1970) |
container_volume | 73 |
creator | Velasquez‐Plata, Diega Todd Scheyer, E. Mellonig, James T. |
description | Background: The combination of bone replacement graft materials has been suggested for the treatment of periodontal osseous defects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) combined with a bovine‐derived xenograft (BDX) as compared to EMD alone in the treatment of intraosseous defects in patients with moderate to advanced periodontitis.
Methods: Sixteen adult patients with at least 2 intrabony defects were entered in this split‐mouth design study. Defects were treated with EMD alone or EMD + BDX. Reentries were performed 6 to 8 months after initial surgery. The following soft and hard tissue measurements were recorded prior to initial surgery and at reentry: probing depth (PD), gingival margin location, clinical attachment level (CAL), depth of defect, and crestal bone level. Statistical analyses were performed to determine changes in PD, CAL, fill of osseous defect, and crestal resorption. Percentages of bone fill (%BF) and defect resolution (%DR) were also calculated.
Results: The most significant results were that gingival recession was greater for the group treated with EMD alone (0.8 ± 0.8 mm) compared to EMD + BDX (0.3 ± 0.6 mm) (P = 0.04) and bone fill was greater for EMD + BDX (4.0 ± 0.8 mm) compared to EMD alone (3.1 ± 1.0 mm) (P = 0.02). The measures for PD reduction, attachment level gain, crestal resorption, %BF, and %DR did not present a statistically significant difference (P >0.10).
Conclusions: This study evaluated the performance of EMD + BDX and EMD alone. The results demonstrated that a significant improvement in clinical parameters was observed. When comparing both modalities, a statistically significant difference was only found for gingival recession and bone fill, yielding a more favorable outcome towards the combined approach. J Periodontol 2002;73:433‐440. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1902/jop.2002.73.4.433 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71652806</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>71652806</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3453-f3ade5a0160277cd0d5cf0af0143c9e18162ce41117b54fcd597337448d700ee3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1O3DAUha2Kqgw_D9BN5RW7BDt24smSDgO0ogIhULuzPM51MUrswfYMsOsj9EH6VDxJHWakLruyrHu-c-7VQegjJSVtSXX84JdlRUhVClbykjP2Dk1oy1nBGkF20CSPqoLxttpFezE-5C_ljHxAu5S2LeG8nqA_s946q1WPZ35YqmCjd9gbrByeOzVAj7-pFOwzPoVg1yrZNeC7CB0-6b0D7AO2bkQX1uVhZr_bdI8V_uzX1sHrr99vXNb_AOd_BmUSNhlK94BvA6g0gEtj3nWW-c67lDe5ihH8KuZIAzrFMeFiNSgXD9B7o_oIh9t3H92dzW9nF8Xl1fmX2clloRmvWWGY6qBWhDakEkJ3pKu1IcqQfL1ugU5pU2nglFKxqLnRXd0KxgTn004QAsD20dHGdxn84wpikoONGvpeuXExKWhTV1PSZCHdCHXwMQYwchnsoMKLpESOFclckRwrkoJJLnNFmfm0NV8tBuj-EdtOskBsBE-2h5f_O8qv1_MbMlr_BfehoT4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71652806</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical Comparison of an Enamel Matrix Derivative Used Alone or in Combination With a Bovine‐Derived Xenograft for the Treatment of Periodontal Osseous Defects in Humans</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Velasquez‐Plata, Diega ; Todd Scheyer, E. ; Mellonig, James T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Velasquez‐Plata, Diega ; Todd Scheyer, E. ; Mellonig, James T.</creatorcontrib><description>Background: The combination of bone replacement graft materials has been suggested for the treatment of periodontal osseous defects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) combined with a bovine‐derived xenograft (BDX) as compared to EMD alone in the treatment of intraosseous defects in patients with moderate to advanced periodontitis.
Methods: Sixteen adult patients with at least 2 intrabony defects were entered in this split‐mouth design study. Defects were treated with EMD alone or EMD + BDX. Reentries were performed 6 to 8 months after initial surgery. The following soft and hard tissue measurements were recorded prior to initial surgery and at reentry: probing depth (PD), gingival margin location, clinical attachment level (CAL), depth of defect, and crestal bone level. Statistical analyses were performed to determine changes in PD, CAL, fill of osseous defect, and crestal resorption. Percentages of bone fill (%BF) and defect resolution (%DR) were also calculated.
Results: The most significant results were that gingival recession was greater for the group treated with EMD alone (0.8 ± 0.8 mm) compared to EMD + BDX (0.3 ± 0.6 mm) (P = 0.04) and bone fill was greater for EMD + BDX (4.0 ± 0.8 mm) compared to EMD alone (3.1 ± 1.0 mm) (P = 0.02). The measures for PD reduction, attachment level gain, crestal resorption, %BF, and %DR did not present a statistically significant difference (P >0.10).
Conclusions: This study evaluated the performance of EMD + BDX and EMD alone. The results demonstrated that a significant improvement in clinical parameters was observed. When comparing both modalities, a statistically significant difference was only found for gingival recession and bone fill, yielding a more favorable outcome towards the combined approach. J Periodontol 2002;73:433‐440.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3492</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-3670</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1902/jop.2002.73.4.433</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11990445</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>737 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60611‐2690, USA: American Academy of Periodontology</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Alveolar Bone Loss - surgery ; Alveolar Process - pathology ; Animals ; Bone Matrix - transplantation ; Bone Regeneration ; Bone Resorption - pathology ; Bone Substitutes - therapeutic use ; Cattle ; Comparison studies ; Dental Enamel Proteins - therapeutic use ; Dentistry ; enamel matrix derivative ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Gingival Recession - surgery ; grafts, bone ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Minerals - therapeutic use ; Periodontal Attachment Loss - surgery ; Periodontal Pocket - surgery ; periodontal regeneration ; Periodontitis - surgery ; proteins, enamel matrix ; Single-Blind Method ; Statistics as Topic ; Transplantation, Heterologous ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Journal of periodontology (1970), 2002-04, Vol.73 (4), p.433-440</ispartof><rights>2002 American Academy of Periodontology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3453-f3ade5a0160277cd0d5cf0af0143c9e18162ce41117b54fcd597337448d700ee3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1902%2Fjop.2002.73.4.433$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1902%2Fjop.2002.73.4.433$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11990445$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Velasquez‐Plata, Diega</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Todd Scheyer, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mellonig, James T.</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical Comparison of an Enamel Matrix Derivative Used Alone or in Combination With a Bovine‐Derived Xenograft for the Treatment of Periodontal Osseous Defects in Humans</title><title>Journal of periodontology (1970)</title><addtitle>J Periodontol</addtitle><description>Background: The combination of bone replacement graft materials has been suggested for the treatment of periodontal osseous defects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) combined with a bovine‐derived xenograft (BDX) as compared to EMD alone in the treatment of intraosseous defects in patients with moderate to advanced periodontitis.
Methods: Sixteen adult patients with at least 2 intrabony defects were entered in this split‐mouth design study. Defects were treated with EMD alone or EMD + BDX. Reentries were performed 6 to 8 months after initial surgery. The following soft and hard tissue measurements were recorded prior to initial surgery and at reentry: probing depth (PD), gingival margin location, clinical attachment level (CAL), depth of defect, and crestal bone level. Statistical analyses were performed to determine changes in PD, CAL, fill of osseous defect, and crestal resorption. Percentages of bone fill (%BF) and defect resolution (%DR) were also calculated.
Results: The most significant results were that gingival recession was greater for the group treated with EMD alone (0.8 ± 0.8 mm) compared to EMD + BDX (0.3 ± 0.6 mm) (P = 0.04) and bone fill was greater for EMD + BDX (4.0 ± 0.8 mm) compared to EMD alone (3.1 ± 1.0 mm) (P = 0.02). The measures for PD reduction, attachment level gain, crestal resorption, %BF, and %DR did not present a statistically significant difference (P >0.10).
Conclusions: This study evaluated the performance of EMD + BDX and EMD alone. The results demonstrated that a significant improvement in clinical parameters was observed. When comparing both modalities, a statistically significant difference was only found for gingival recession and bone fill, yielding a more favorable outcome towards the combined approach. J Periodontol 2002;73:433‐440.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Alveolar Bone Loss - surgery</subject><subject>Alveolar Process - pathology</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Bone Matrix - transplantation</subject><subject>Bone Regeneration</subject><subject>Bone Resorption - pathology</subject><subject>Bone Substitutes - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Comparison studies</subject><subject>Dental Enamel Proteins - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>enamel matrix derivative</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Gingival Recession - surgery</subject><subject>grafts, bone</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Minerals - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Periodontal Attachment Loss - surgery</subject><subject>Periodontal Pocket - surgery</subject><subject>periodontal regeneration</subject><subject>Periodontitis - surgery</subject><subject>proteins, enamel matrix</subject><subject>Single-Blind Method</subject><subject>Statistics as Topic</subject><subject>Transplantation, Heterologous</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0022-3492</issn><issn>1943-3670</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1O3DAUha2Kqgw_D9BN5RW7BDt24smSDgO0ogIhULuzPM51MUrswfYMsOsj9EH6VDxJHWakLruyrHu-c-7VQegjJSVtSXX84JdlRUhVClbykjP2Dk1oy1nBGkF20CSPqoLxttpFezE-5C_ljHxAu5S2LeG8nqA_s946q1WPZ35YqmCjd9gbrByeOzVAj7-pFOwzPoVg1yrZNeC7CB0-6b0D7AO2bkQX1uVhZr_bdI8V_uzX1sHrr99vXNb_AOd_BmUSNhlK94BvA6g0gEtj3nWW-c67lDe5ihH8KuZIAzrFMeFiNSgXD9B7o_oIh9t3H92dzW9nF8Xl1fmX2clloRmvWWGY6qBWhDakEkJ3pKu1IcqQfL1ugU5pU2nglFKxqLnRXd0KxgTn004QAsD20dHGdxn84wpikoONGvpeuXExKWhTV1PSZCHdCHXwMQYwchnsoMKLpESOFclckRwrkoJJLnNFmfm0NV8tBuj-EdtOskBsBE-2h5f_O8qv1_MbMlr_BfehoT4</recordid><startdate>200204</startdate><enddate>200204</enddate><creator>Velasquez‐Plata, Diega</creator><creator>Todd Scheyer, E.</creator><creator>Mellonig, James T.</creator><general>American Academy of Periodontology</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200204</creationdate><title>Clinical Comparison of an Enamel Matrix Derivative Used Alone or in Combination With a Bovine‐Derived Xenograft for the Treatment of Periodontal Osseous Defects in Humans</title><author>Velasquez‐Plata, Diega ; Todd Scheyer, E. ; Mellonig, James T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3453-f3ade5a0160277cd0d5cf0af0143c9e18162ce41117b54fcd597337448d700ee3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Alveolar Bone Loss - surgery</topic><topic>Alveolar Process - pathology</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Bone Matrix - transplantation</topic><topic>Bone Regeneration</topic><topic>Bone Resorption - pathology</topic><topic>Bone Substitutes - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Comparison studies</topic><topic>Dental Enamel Proteins - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>enamel matrix derivative</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Gingival Recession - surgery</topic><topic>grafts, bone</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Minerals - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Periodontal Attachment Loss - surgery</topic><topic>Periodontal Pocket - surgery</topic><topic>periodontal regeneration</topic><topic>Periodontitis - surgery</topic><topic>proteins, enamel matrix</topic><topic>Single-Blind Method</topic><topic>Statistics as Topic</topic><topic>Transplantation, Heterologous</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Velasquez‐Plata, Diega</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Todd Scheyer, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mellonig, James T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of periodontology (1970)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Velasquez‐Plata, Diega</au><au>Todd Scheyer, E.</au><au>Mellonig, James T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical Comparison of an Enamel Matrix Derivative Used Alone or in Combination With a Bovine‐Derived Xenograft for the Treatment of Periodontal Osseous Defects in Humans</atitle><jtitle>Journal of periodontology (1970)</jtitle><addtitle>J Periodontol</addtitle><date>2002-04</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>73</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>433</spage><epage>440</epage><pages>433-440</pages><issn>0022-3492</issn><eissn>1943-3670</eissn><abstract>Background: The combination of bone replacement graft materials has been suggested for the treatment of periodontal osseous defects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) combined with a bovine‐derived xenograft (BDX) as compared to EMD alone in the treatment of intraosseous defects in patients with moderate to advanced periodontitis.
Methods: Sixteen adult patients with at least 2 intrabony defects were entered in this split‐mouth design study. Defects were treated with EMD alone or EMD + BDX. Reentries were performed 6 to 8 months after initial surgery. The following soft and hard tissue measurements were recorded prior to initial surgery and at reentry: probing depth (PD), gingival margin location, clinical attachment level (CAL), depth of defect, and crestal bone level. Statistical analyses were performed to determine changes in PD, CAL, fill of osseous defect, and crestal resorption. Percentages of bone fill (%BF) and defect resolution (%DR) were also calculated.
Results: The most significant results were that gingival recession was greater for the group treated with EMD alone (0.8 ± 0.8 mm) compared to EMD + BDX (0.3 ± 0.6 mm) (P = 0.04) and bone fill was greater for EMD + BDX (4.0 ± 0.8 mm) compared to EMD alone (3.1 ± 1.0 mm) (P = 0.02). The measures for PD reduction, attachment level gain, crestal resorption, %BF, and %DR did not present a statistically significant difference (P >0.10).
Conclusions: This study evaluated the performance of EMD + BDX and EMD alone. The results demonstrated that a significant improvement in clinical parameters was observed. When comparing both modalities, a statistically significant difference was only found for gingival recession and bone fill, yielding a more favorable outcome towards the combined approach. J Periodontol 2002;73:433‐440.</abstract><cop>737 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60611‐2690, USA</cop><pub>American Academy of Periodontology</pub><pmid>11990445</pmid><doi>10.1902/jop.2002.73.4.433</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-3492 |
ispartof | Journal of periodontology (1970), 2002-04, Vol.73 (4), p.433-440 |
issn | 0022-3492 1943-3670 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71652806 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Journals; MEDLINE |
subjects | Adult Aged Alveolar Bone Loss - surgery Alveolar Process - pathology Animals Bone Matrix - transplantation Bone Regeneration Bone Resorption - pathology Bone Substitutes - therapeutic use Cattle Comparison studies Dental Enamel Proteins - therapeutic use Dentistry enamel matrix derivative Female Follow-Up Studies Gingival Recession - surgery grafts, bone Humans Male Middle Aged Minerals - therapeutic use Periodontal Attachment Loss - surgery Periodontal Pocket - surgery periodontal regeneration Periodontitis - surgery proteins, enamel matrix Single-Blind Method Statistics as Topic Transplantation, Heterologous Treatment Outcome |
title | Clinical Comparison of an Enamel Matrix Derivative Used Alone or in Combination With a Bovine‐Derived Xenograft for the Treatment of Periodontal Osseous Defects in Humans |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T19%3A39%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20Comparison%20of%20an%20Enamel%20Matrix%20Derivative%20Used%20Alone%20or%20in%20Combination%20With%20a%20Bovine%E2%80%90Derived%20Xenograft%20for%20the%20Treatment%20of%20Periodontal%20Osseous%20Defects%20in%20Humans&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20periodontology%20(1970)&rft.au=Velasquez%E2%80%90Plata,%20Diega&rft.date=2002-04&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=433&rft.epage=440&rft.pages=433-440&rft.issn=0022-3492&rft.eissn=1943-3670&rft_id=info:doi/10.1902/jop.2002.73.4.433&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71652806%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71652806&rft_id=info:pmid/11990445&rfr_iscdi=true |