Premium
Treatment of Intrabony Defects With Enamel Matrix Proteins or Bioabsorbable Membranes. A 4‐Year Follow‐Up Split‐Mouth Study
Author(s) -
Sculean Anton,
Donos Nikolaos,
Miliauskaite Asta,
Arweiler Nicole,
Brecx Michel
Publication year - 2001
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.2001.72.12.1695
Subject(s) - dentistry , enamel paint , membrane , matrix (chemical analysis) , orthodontics , medicine , materials science , chemistry , composite material , biochemistry
Background: Treatment with enamel matrix proteins (EMD) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with bioabsorbable membranes has been shown to promote periodontal regeneration; however, until now, there were only limited data on the long‐term clinical results following these regenerative techniques. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to present the 4‐year results following treatment of intrabony defects with EMD or guided tissue regeneration (GTR). Methods: Twelve patients, each displaying one pair of intrabony defects located contralaterally in the same jaw, were randomly treated with EMD or with GTR by means of bioabsorbable membranes. The following clinical parameters were evaluated at baseline, at 1 year, and at 4 years after treatment: plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), gingival recession (GR), and clinical attachment level (CAL). The primary outcome variable was CAL. No statistically significant differences between the groups were found at baseline. Power analysis to determine superiority of EMD treatment showed that the available sample size would yield 70% power to detect a 1 mm difference. Results: The sites treated with EMD demonstrated mean CAL change from 9.8 ± 2.0 mm to 6.4 ± 1.6 mm ( P <0.001) and to 6.8 ± 1.8 mm ( P <0.001) at 1 and 4 years, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the CAL mean at 1 and 4 years postoperatively. The sites treated with GTR showed a mean CAL change from 9.8 ± 2.3 mm to 6.6 ± 1.7 mm ( P <0.001) at 1 year and to 6.9 ± 1.8 mm ( P <0.001) at 4 years. The CAL change between 1 and 4 years did not present statistically significant differences. No statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at 1 and 4 years between the treatment groups. Conclusions: It was concluded that the CAL gain obtained following treatment with EMD or GTR can be maintained over a 4‐year period. J Periodontol 2001;72:1695‐1701.