Premium
Clinical and radiographic findings following application of enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of intrabony defects
Author(s) -
Parashis A.,
Tsiklakis K.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027009705.x
Subject(s) - enamel matrix derivative , medicine , dentistry , radiography , resorption , gingival recession , debridement (dental) , orthodontics , surgery , regeneration (biology) , biology , microbiology and biotechnology
Aim: The purpose of this case report study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic findings following application of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in the treatment of 2‐ or 3‐wall intrabony defects in a private periodontal practice one year after surgery. Method: 15 consecutive patients (age range 38–67 years, 9 females, 6 males, 3 smokers) with 25 intrabony defects were included in the study. The decision to use reconstructive surgery was taken at least 3 months after termination of the presurgical treatment phase. Inclusion criteria were: presence of an interproximal area with residual probing depth (PD) 6 mm, probing attachment level (PAL) 6 mm and an associated intrabony defect 4 mm deep and 2 mm wide as measured during surgery (defects were not associated with adjacent furcation lesions). Open‐flap surgery was performed to expose the defects and the EMD gel was applied after proper debridement. The patients were instructed to rinse 2× daily for 6 weeks with a 0.12% solution of chlorhexidine. Results: At 12 months, mean PD decreased from 8.4 mm to 4.0 mm and PAL from 10.2 mm to 6.6 mm, while recession increased from 1.8 mm to 2.6 mm. Residual PD greater than 4 mm was observed only in 7 sites. 14 sites demonstrated a PAL gain of 2–3 mm, 9 sites a gain of 4–5 mm and 2 sites a gain of 6 mm. Radiographic assessment indicated a mean crestal bone resorption of 20.7% and a mean improvement in the distance between the CEJ and the base of the defect of 22.9%. The combination of defect fill from the bottom of the defect and crestal resorption resulted in a mean defect resolution of 61%. Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, the application of EMD gel in 2‐ or 3‐wall intrabony defects resulted in clinically significant gain of PAL and radiographic bone. Further controlled clinical studies are required to confirm the effectiveness of the EMD gel in the treatment of various osseous defects.