Premium
Periodontal regeneration versus extraction and dental implant or prosthetic replacement of teeth severely compromised by attachment loss to the apex: A randomized controlled clinical trial reporting 10‐year outcomes, survival analysis and mean cumulative cost of recurrence
Author(s) -
Cortellini Pierpaolo,
Stalpers Gabrielle,
Mollo Aniello,
Tonetti Maurizio S.
Publication year - 2020
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/jcpe.13289
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , randomized controlled trial , periodontitis , tooth loss , population , clinical attachment loss , survival rate , clinical trial , confidence interval , quality of life (healthcare) , surgery , oral health , environmental health , nursing
Abstract Background Periodontal regeneration can change tooth prognosis and represents an alternative to extraction in teeth compromised by severe intra‐bony defects. The aim of this study was to compare periodontal regeneration (PR) with tooth extraction and replacement (TER) in a population with attachment loss to or beyond the apex of the root in terms of professional, patient‐reported and economic outcomes. Methods This was a 10‐year randomized controlled clinical trial. 50 stage III or stage IV periodontitis subjects with a severely compromised tooth with attachment loss to or beyond the apex were randomized to PR or TER with either an implant‐ or a tooth‐supported fixed partial denture. Subjects were kept on a strict periodontal supportive care regimen every 3 months and examined yearly. Survival and recurrence analysis were performed. Results 88% and 100% survival rates were observed in the PR and TER groups. Complication‐free survival was not significantly different: 6.7–9.1 years for PR and 7.3–9.1 years for TER ( p = .788). In PR, the observed 10‐year attachment gain was 7.3 ± 2.3 mm and the residual probing depths were 3.4 ± 0.8 mm. Recurrence analysis showed that the 95% confidence interval of the costs was significantly lower for PR compared with TER throughout the whole 10‐year period. Patient‐reported outcomes and oral health‐related quality‐of‐life measurements improved in both groups. Conclusions Periodontal regeneration can change the prognosis of hopeless teeth and is a less costly alternative to tooth extraction and replacement. The complexity of the treatment limits widespread application to the most complex cases but provides powerful proof of principle for the benefits of PR in deep intra‐bony defect.