Premium
Four‐year results of a prospective‐controlled clinical study evaluating healing of intra‐bony defects following treatment with an enamel matrix protein derivative alone or combined with a bioactive glass
Author(s) -
Sculean Anton,
Pietruska Malgorzata,
Arweiler Nicole B.,
Auschill Thorsten M.,
Nemcovsky Carlos
Publication year - 2007
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 - 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2007.01084.x
Subject(s) - enamel matrix derivative , medicine , dentistry , enamel paint , nuclear medicine , surgery , regeneration (biology) , biology , microbiology and biotechnology
Aim: To evaluate the 4‐year results following regenerative periodontal surgery at intra‐bony defects with either a combination of an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) and a bioactive glass (BG) or with EMD alone. Methods: Twenty‐five patients with one deep intra‐bony defect each were randomly treated with either an EMD+BG (test) or with EMD alone (control). Measurements were recorded at baseline, at 1 and at 4 years following therapy. The primary outcome variable was the clinical attachment level (CAL). Results: The test group demonstrated a mean CAL change from 10.3±1.6 to 6.7±1.2 mm ( p <0.001) and to 6.9±1.0 mm ( p <0.001) at 1 and 4 years, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the 1‐ and 4‐year results. The control group showed a mean CAL change from 10.4±1.6 to 6.7±1.1 mm ( p <0.001) at 1 year and 7.0±0.9 mm ( p <0.001) at 4 years. The CAL change between 1 and 4 years did not present statistically significant differences. In each of the two groups, four defects have lost 1 mm of the CAL gained at 1 year. A CAL gain of 1 mm compared with the 1‐year results was measured in only one defect of the test group. Compared with baseline, a CAL gain of 3 mm was found at 4 years in 10 defects in both groups. Between the treatment groups, no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at 1 and at 4 years. Conclusions: Within their limits, the present results indicate that the clinical improvements obtained with both regenerative modalities can be maintained over a period of 4 years.