Premium
Evaluation clinique d'un laser Er:YAG en association avec un dérivé protéique de la matrice amélaire pour le traitement de lésions parodontales intraosseuses: une étude pilote
Author(s) -
Schwarz Frank,
Sculean Anton,
Georg Thomas,
Becker Jürgen
Publication year - 2003
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.2003.00412.x
Subject(s) - enamel matrix derivative , dentistry , medicine , er:yag laser , scaling and root planing , bleeding on probing , chronic periodontitis , gingival recession , periodontitis , debridement (dental) , orthodontics , laser , physics , regeneration (biology) , optics , biology , microbiology and biotechnology
Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare the combination therapy of deep intrabony periodontal defects using an Er:YAG laser (ERL) and enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) to scaling and root planing+ ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)+EMD. Material and Methods: Twenty‐two patients with chronic periodontitis, each of whom displayed 1 intrabony defect, were randomly treated with access flap surgery and defect debridement with an Er:YAG (160 mJ/pulse, 10 Hz) plus EMD (test) or with access flap surgery followed by scaling and root planing (SRP) with hand instruments plus EDTA and EMD (control). The following clinical parameters were recorded at baseline and at 6 months: plaque index, gingival index, bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), gingival recession, and clinical attachment level (CAL). No differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at baseline between the two groups. Results: Healing was uneventful in all patients. At 6 months after therapy, the sites treated with ERL and EMD showed a reduction in mean PD from 8.6±1.2 mm to 4.6±0.8 mm and a change in mean CAL from 10.7±1.3 mm to 7.5±1.4 mm ( p <0.001). In the group treated with SRP+EDTA+EMD, the mean PD was reduced from 8.1±0.8 mm to 4.0±0.5 mm and the mean CAL changed from 10.4±1.1 mm to 7.1±1.2 mm ( p <0.001). No statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed between the test and control group. Conclusion: Within the limits of the present study, it may be concluded that both therapies led to short‐term improvements of the investigated clinical parameters, and the combination of ERL and EMD does not seem to improve the clinical outcome of the therapy additionally compared to SRP+EDTA+EMD.