Premium
A Clinical Evaluation of an Allograft Combined with a Bioabsorbable Membrane Versus an Alloplast/Allograft Composite Graft Combined With a Bioabsorbable Membrane. 100 Consecutively Treated Cases
Author(s) -
Harris Randall J.
Publication year - 1998
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.1998.69.5.536
Subject(s) - membrane , medicine , transplantation , surgery , dentistry , materials science , chemistry , biochemistry
T he purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness of 2 surgical techniques in treating periodontal defects. Both techniques involved tetracycline treatment of a root planed root, grafting the osseous defect with a bone graft, and placement of a bioabsorbable membrane. In group A, the bone graft was a mix of demineralized freeze‐dried allograft, tetracycline, and porous hydroxyapatite and in group B, the bone graft was a mix of demineralized freeze‐dried allograft and tetra cycline. There was a statistically significant increase in recession (group A, 0.7 mm; group B, 0.6 mm), decreases in probing depth (group A, 6.1 mm; group B, 5.6 mm), and gains in attachment levels (group A, 5.4 mm; group B, 5.0 mm). There were no statistically significant differences between the results for either group. The defects associated with furcations and those that were not associated with furcations had similar results, except for the percent attachment gain. Smoking and age (≥60 years old) could not be associated with results. Defects with ≥10 mm probing depths (PD) had greater PD reductions (group A, 7.7 mm; group B, 7.1) and attachment gains (group A, 6.6 mm; group B, 6.4 mm) than the defects with probing depths less than 10 mm (probing reduction group A, 4.8 mm; group B, 4.5 mm; attachment gain group A, 4.4 mm; group B, 4.0 mm). Both surgical procedures improved the clinical situation. However, neither technique seemed to offer a statistical advantage over the other. The inclusion of porous hydroxyapatite did not improve or diminish the results. J Periodontol 1998;69:536–546 .