Premium
Treatment of Supra‐Alveolar‐Type Defects by a Simplified Papilla Preservation Technique for Access Flap Surgery With or Without Enamel Matrix Proteins
Author(s) -
Di Tullio Marcella,
Femminella Beatrice,
Pilloni Andrea,
Romano Luigi,
D'Arcangelo Camillo,
De Ninis Paolo,
Paolantonio Michele
Publication year - 2013
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.2012.120075
Subject(s) - enamel matrix derivative , medicine , major duodenal papilla , dentistry , dental alveolus , enamel paint , radiography , surgery , regeneration (biology) , biology , microbiology and biotechnology
Background: In this study, we compare the effectiveness of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) associated with a simplified papilla preservation flap (SPPF) technique to SPPF alone when surgically treating supra‐alveolar‐type defects. Methods: Fifty patients, from 54 initially selected, presenting horizontal bone loss around ≥4 adjacent teeth, were treated by an SPPF technique; 25 participants also received EMD (test group) and 25 patients underwent flap surgery alone (control group). A complete clinical and radiographic examination was performed at baseline and 12 months after treatment. Pre‐ and post‐therapy probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (GR), and radiographic bone level (BL) were compared between treatments. Results: After 12 months, PD, CAL, and GR in both groups showed significant differences from baseline ( P <0.001). No differences in BL scores were observed within the groups at the 12‐month examination. After 1 year, the test group showed significantly ( P <0.001) greater PD reduction (3.4 ± 0.7 mm) and CAL gain (2.8 ± 0.8 mm) and a smaller GR increase (0.6 ± 0.4 mm) compared to the control group (PD, 2.2 ± 0.8 mm; CAL, 1.0 ± 0.6 mm; GR, 1.2 ± 0.7 mm.) BL changes did not significantly differ between the experimental groups. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that combining EMD and SPPF in the treatment of suprabony defects may lead to a greater clinical improvement compared to SPPF alone.