Premium
EDTA Gel Root Conditioning: Lack of Effect on Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Intrabony Defect Treatment With Enamel Matrix Derivative
Author(s) -
Parashis Andreas O.,
Tsiklakis Konstantinos,
Tatakis Dimitris N.
Publication year - 2006
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.2006.77.1.103
Subject(s) - enamel matrix derivative , dentistry , radiography , medicine , enamel paint , conditioning , derivative (finance) , orthodontics , matrix (chemical analysis) , materials science , surgery , composite material , mathematics , biology , business , microbiology and biotechnology , statistics , finance , regeneration (biology)
Background: The adjunctive use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in the surgical therapy of intrabony defects results in improved outcomes compared to surgical debridement alone. However, the role of EDTA root conditioning in EMD therapy has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare the 12‐month outcomes of EMD application with and without EDTA root conditioning in intrabony defect surgical therapy. Methods: Twenty‐eight chronic periodontitis patients, each contributing a 2‐ or 3‐wall intrabony defect (≥4 mm deep and ≥2 mm wide), participated. Patients consecutively received surgical treatment with either EMD alone (first 13 patients) or EMD + EDTA (subsequent 15 patients). Probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and gingival margin position, i.e., recession (REC) were the clinical parameters recorded. Recorded radiographic parameters were the distances from 1) cemento‐enamel junction to bone crest (CEJ to BC), 2) CEJ to base of the defect (CEJ to BD), and 3) BC to BD. Results: Intragroup analysis showed that both EMD alone and EMD + EDTA led to significant PD reduction, CAL gain, and REC increase 1 year postoperatively. Both groups had >60% mean radiographic defect resolution (change in BC to BD). None of the recorded parameters were significantly different between the two groups, either at baseline or postoperatively. Conclusions: These results suggest that clinical and radiographic outcomes of intrabony defect EMD therapy do not depend on the use of EDTA gel root conditioning. The potential contribution of EDTA gel root conditioning to the histological outcomes reported with EMD therapy remains to be determined.