Premium
Periodontal Repair in Intrabony Defects Treated With a Calcium Carbonate Implant and Guided Tissue Regeneration
Author(s) -
Kim ChongKwan,
Choi EunJeong,
Cho KyooSung,
Chai JungKiu,
Wikesjö Ulf M.E.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.1996.67.12.1301
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , implant , gingival recession , surgery
C linical outcome following the concurrent use of a porous resorbable calcium carbonate (CC) implant and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in intrabony periodontal defects was evaluated in a randomized four‐treatment parallel arm study. Eighty (80) patients, each contributing one interproximal intrabony defect, were assigned to the four treatments (20 patients per treatment) including the CC implant and GTR (CC+GTR), GTR alone (GTR control), CC implant alone (CC control), and gingival flap surgery alone (GFS control). Fourteen patients treated with CC+GTR, 19 patients treated with the GTR control, 13 patients treated with the CC control, and 18 patients treated with the GFS control completed the study. Clinical healing was evaluated 6 months postsurgery and included changes in probing depth, clinical attachment level, probing bone level, and gingival recession. Postsurgery probing depth reduction was 4.5 ± 1.7 mm (CC+GTR; P < 0.01), 4.8 ± 1.8 mm (GTR; P < 0.01), 3.7 ± 2.2 mm (CC; P < 0.01), and 3.3 ± 1.6 mm (GFS; P < 0.01). Clinical attachment gain amounted to 3.3 ± 1.4 mm (CC+GTR; P < 0.01), 4.0 ± 2.1 mm (GTR; P < 0.01), 3.0 ± 2.4 mm (CC; P < 0.01), and 2.0 ± 1.7 mm (GFS; P < 0.01). The CC+GTR and GTR treatments exhibited significantly greater improvements compared to GFS ( P < 0.05). Postsurgery probing bone level gain amounted to 4.0 ± 1.7 mm (CC+GTR; P < 0.01), 4.1 ± 1.5 mm (GTR; P < 0.01), 4.0 ± 2.2 mm (CC; P < 0.01), and 0.5 ± 2.0 mm (GFS; P > 0.05). The CC+GTR, GTR, and CC treatments exhibited significantly greater improvements compared to GFS ( P < 0.05). Gingival recession increased significantly compared to presurgery for GTR, CC, and GFS treatments (−0.9 ± 1.2, −0.7 ± 0.7, and −1.2 ± 1.4 mm, respectively; P < 0.01). The results suggest that the concurrent use of a porous resorbable CC implant and GTR has limited adjunctive effect in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects. J Periodontol 1996;67:1301–1306 .