Premium
Long‐Term Clinical Results on the Use of Bone‐Replacement Grafts in the Treatment of Intrabony Periodontal Defects. Comparison of the Use of Autogenous Bone Graft Plus Calcium Sulfate to Autogenous Bone Graft Covered With a Bioabsorbable Membrane
Author(s) -
Orsini Marco,
Orsini Giovanna,
Benlloch Dunia,
Aranda Juan Jose,
Sanz Mariano
Publication year - 2008
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.2008.070282
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , bone grafting , scaling and root planing , bleeding on probing , reduction (mathematics) , oral hygiene , periodontitis , surgery , chronic periodontitis , geometry , mathematics
Background: Many clinical investigations have demonstrated the benefits of different regenerative approaches in the treatment of infrabony defects. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the results obtained with the combination of autogenous bone grafting plus calcium sulfate and to compare this outcome with the results obtained using autogenous bone grafting with a bioabsorbable membrane. Methods: Twelve subjects participated in this split‐mouth trial. Twelve 2‐ or 3‐wall periodontal defects were treated with a combination of autogenous bone grafting plus calcium sulfate (test) and were compared to 12 defects treated with autogenous bone grafting with a bioabsorbable membrane (control). Before surgery, subjects were instructed in oral hygiene techniques, and scaling and root planing were completed. Surgery was identical for both groups except for the regenerative material. After healing, subjects followed a periodontal maintenance program. Probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level, and bleeding on probing were recorded at baseline, 6 months, and 6 years. Results: There were no statistical differences between test and control defects at baseline. At 6 months, there was a PD reduction of 4.3 ± 1.0 mm in the control group and 4.4 ± 1.1 mm in the test group. There was a clinical attachment gain of 3.5 ± 1.1 mm in the control group and 3.6 ± 1.0 mm in the test group. At 6 years, there was a PD reduction of 3.3 ± 1.0 mm in the control group and 4.2 ± 1.2 mm in the test group. There was a clinical attachment gain of 2.6 ± 1.2 mm in the control group and 2.4 ± 1.1 mm in the test group. Differences between treatment groups were not statistically significant at 6 months or 6 years. Conclusion: Both therapies led to significant short‐ and long‐term improvements in the outcome variables assessed.