Comparison of Clinical, Radiographic, Histometric Measurements Following Treatment With Guided Tissue Regeneration or Enamel Matrix Proteins in Human Periodontal Defects

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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of periodontology (1970) 2002-04, Vol.73 (4), p.409-417
Hauptverfasser: Windisch, Péter, Sculean, Anton, Klein, Filip, Tóth, Vilmos, Gera, István, Reich, Elmar, Eickholz, Peter
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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.
ISSN:0022-3492
1943-3670
DOI:10.1902/jop.2002.73.4.409