Premium
Treatment of dehiscence‐type defects with collagen matrix and/or enamel matrix derivative: Histomorphometric study in minipigs
Author(s) -
FrançaGrohmann Isabela Lima,
Sangiorgio João Paulo Menck,
Bueno Manuela Rocha,
Casarin Renato Corrêa Viana,
Silvério Ruiz Karina Gonzáles,
Nociti Francisco Humberto,
Casati Márcio Zaffalon,
Sallum Enilson Antonio
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1002/jper.19-0107
Subject(s) - enamel matrix derivative , cementum , junctional epithelium , dehiscence , dentistry , gingival recession , connective tissue , gingival margin , enamel paint , medicine , chemistry , dentin , regeneration (biology) , pathology , surgery , biology , microbiology and biotechnology
Background This study aimed to evaluate, histomorphometrically, the use of collagen matrix (CM) and/or enamel matrix derivative (EMD) for the treatment of dehiscence‐type recession defects in minipigs. Methods Eight healthy, male, young BR‐1 minipigs, with no periodontal disease were treated. Bilateral dehiscence‐type defects were surgically created on the buccal of the mandibular premolars (PI and PII). After 30 days, the defects were randomly assigned to four groups: coronally advanced flap (CAF); CAF + CM; CAF + EMD; and CAF + CM + EMD (split‐mouth design). The evaluated parameters (mm): total defect length; new cementum (NC); new bone (NB); gingival margin position; total epithelium length; epithelium on the root; connective tissue adaptation; and soft tissue thickness (STT). Results The EMD‐treated groups showed a superior length of NC [4.13 ± 1.22 (CAF + EMD); 3.95 ± 1.11 (CAF + CM + EMD); 2.94 ± 0.77 (CAF + CM); 2.72 ± 0.81 (CAF), P = 0.02] and NB [3.21 ± 0.68 (CAF + CM + EMD); 3.01 ± 0.56 (CAF + EMD); 2.15 ± 0.47 (CAF + CM); 2.29 ± 0.82 (CAF), P = 0.005]. The CAF and CAF + CM groups showed a superior epithelial length when compared to EMD‐treated groups after 3 months. A superior STT was observed for CAF + CM + EMD group (1.5 ± 0.33) when compared with the other groups [1.09 ± 0.26 (CAF + EMD); 1.04 ± 0.34 (CAF + CM); and 1.14 ± 0.29 (CAF), P = 0.03]. Conclusion(s) The results of the present study indicate that EMD application, irrespective of the combination with CM, may improve the periodontal regeneration of dehiscence‐type defects in this animal model.