Treatment of intrabony periodontal defects using rhFGF‐2 in combination with deproteinized bovine bone mineral or rhFGF‐2 alone: A 6‐month randomized controlled trial

Aim To evaluate the use of recombinant human fibroblast growth factor (rhFGF)‐2 in combination with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) compared with rhFGF‐2 alone, in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects. Materials and Methods Patients with periodontitis who had received initial peri...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical periodontology 2019-03, Vol.46 (3), p.332-341
Hauptverfasser: Saito, Atsushi, Bizenjima, Takahiro, Takeuchi, Takahiro, Suzuki, Eiichi, Sato, Masahiro, Yoshikawa, Kouki, Kitamura, Yurie, Matsugami, Daisuke, Aoki, Hideto, Kita, Daichi, Imamura, Kentaro, Irokawa, Daisuke, Seshima, Fumi, Tomita, Sachiyo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Aim To evaluate the use of recombinant human fibroblast growth factor (rhFGF)‐2 in combination with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) compared with rhFGF‐2 alone, in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects. Materials and Methods Patients with periodontitis who had received initial periodontal therapy and had intrabony defects of ≥ 3 mm in depth were enrolled. Sites were randomly assigned to receive a commercial formulation of 0.3% rhFGF‐2 + DBBM (test) or rhFGF‐2 alone (control). Clinical parameters and a patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM) were evaluated at baseline and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Results Twenty‐two sites in each group were evaluated. A significant improvement in clinical attachment level (CAL) from baseline was observed in both groups at 6 months postoperatively. CAL gain was 3.16 ± 1.45 mm in the test group and 2.77 ± 1.15 mm in the control group, showing no significant difference between groups. Radiographic bone fill was significantly greater in the test group (47.2%) than in the control group (29.3%). No significant difference in PROM between groups was observed. Conclusions At 6 months, no significant difference in CAL gain or PROM between the two treatments was observed, although combination therapy yielded an enhanced radiographic outcome.
ISSN:0303-6979
1600-051X
DOI:10.1111/jcpe.13086