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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of periodontology (1970) 2002-04, Vol.73 (4), p.433-440
Hauptverfasser: Velasquez‐Plata, Diega, Todd Scheyer, E., Mellonig, James T.
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 &gt;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 &gt;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 &gt;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