Premium
Clinical and Radiographic Effects of Enamel Matrix Derivative in the Treatment of Intrabony Periodontal Defects: A 12‐Month Longitudinal Placebo‐Controlled Clinical Trial in Adult Periodontitis Patients
Author(s) -
Rösing Cassiano K.,
Aass Anne M.,
Mavropoulos Antonios,
Gjermo Per
Publication year - 2005
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.2005.76.1.129
Subject(s) - enamel matrix derivative , medicine , dentistry , placebo , radiography , periodontitis , scaling and root planing , chronic periodontitis , randomized controlled trial , clinical trial , orthodontics , surgery , pathology , alternative medicine , regeneration (biology) , biology , microbiology and biotechnology
Background: This randomized, double‐masked, placebocontrolled clinical trial evaluated the effect of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on clinical and radiographic parameters of periodontal intrabony defects. Methods: A split‐mouth design was used in 16 chronic periodontitis patients who had similar defects (≥6 mm of probing depth). Both groups underwent scaling and root planing and were acid‐etched with EDTA. The test sites received the EMD solution and the controls a placebo. Clinical examinations of all 16 patients and radiographs of 14 patients were available at baseline and 6 and 12 months after surgery. Clinical outcomes included probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL); radiographic analysis was performed using computerized linear measurements. Intergroup comparisons were performed by paired samples t test, and over time comparisons were made by general linear model (α = 0.05). Results: A statistically significant improvement over time for PD and CAL and a decrease of the vertical component of the defect was detected in both groups. Comparisons between groups revealed at baseline a mean ± SD value of CAL of 12.93 ± 2.00 and 13.47 ± 2.93 for test and control groups, respectively. These values decreased to 10.92 ± 1.92 and 11.31 ± 1.86 after 12 months for test and control. No statistically significant differences could be observed between groups. PD displayed similar results from 7.57 ± 1.02 and 7.38 ± 1.16 for test and control groups at baseline to 3.40 ± 1.82 and 2.99 ± 1.07 after 12 months. If the data are divided into smokers and non‐smokers, no differences are observed. Conclusion: Use of EMD did not result in more improvement in clinical and radiographic parameters compared to the placebo. J Periodontol 2005;76:129‐133 .