Premium
A double‐blind randomized clinical evaluation of enamel matrix derivative proteins for the treatment of proximal class‐II furcation involvements
Author(s) -
Casarin Renato Corrêa Viana,
Del Peloso Ribeiro Érica,
Nociti Francisco Humberto,
Sallum Antônio Wilson,
Sallum Enilson Antônio,
Ambrosano Gláucia Maria Bovi,
Casati Márcio Zaffalon
Publication year - 2008
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.2008.01202.x
Subject(s) - enamel matrix derivative , bleeding on probing , dentistry , medicine , furcation defect , ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid , gingival margin , debridement (dental) , double blind , orthodontics , periodontitis , molar , chemistry , placebo , pathology , chelation , alternative medicine , organic chemistry , regeneration (biology) , biology , microbiology and biotechnology
Abstract Objective: The aim of the present randomized, double‐blind study was to evaluate the clinical response of proximal furcations treated with enamel matrix derivative proteins (EMD). Material and Methods: Fifteen patients, each with a pair of contralateral class‐II proximal furcation involvements, presenting probing depths (PDs) 5 mm and bleeding on probing (BOP) were selected. The patients were randomly assigned to: control group ( n =15) – open flap debridement (OFD)+24% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) conditioning; test group ( n =15) – OFD+24% EDTA conditioning+EMD application. Plaque index (PI), BOP, PD, gingival margin position (GMP), relative vertical and horizontal clinical attachment level (RVCAL and RHCAL), vertical and horizontal bone level (VBL and HBL) and furcation closure were evaluated immediately before and 2, 4 and 6 months after the surgeries. Results: At 6 months, the RVCAL gains of the control and test group were 0.39 ± 1.00 and 0.54 ± 0.95 mm, while the RHCAL gains were 1.21 ± 2.28 and 1.36 ± 1.26 mm ( p >0.05). The VBL and HBL gains of the control group were 1.04 ± 1.12 and 1.00 ± 1.79 mm, and 0.82 ± 1.82 and 1.17 ± 1.38 mm for the test group ( p >0.05). In addition, a statistical difference was observed in the number of the remaining class‐II furcations between the test and control groups ( p <0.05) in this period. Conclusion: It may be concluded that the use of EMD in proximal furcations did not promote a superior reduction in PD or a gain in clinical and osseous attachment levels, but resulted in a higher rate of class‐II to class‐I furcation conversion.