Premium
Clinical Outcomes Following Regenerative Therapy of Non‐Contained Intrabony Defects Using a Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral Combined With Either Enamel Matrix Derivative or Collagen Membrane
Author(s) -
IorioSiciliano Vincenzo,
Andreuccetti Gianmaria,
Blasi Andrea,
Matarasso Marco,
Sculean Anton,
Salvi Giovanni E.
Publication year - 2014
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.2014.130420
Subject(s) - enamel matrix derivative , dentistry , chemistry , medicine , regeneration (biology) , biology , microbiology and biotechnology
Background: The purpose of this study is to compare clinical outcomes in the treatment of deep non‐contained intrabony defects (i.e., with ≥70% 1‐wall component and a residual 2‐ to 3‐wall component in the most apical part) using deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) combined with either enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) or collagen membrane (CM). Methods: Forty patients with multiple intrabony defects were enrolled. Only one non‐contained defect per patient with an intrabony depth ≥3 mm located in the interproximal area of single‐ and multirooted teeth was randomly assigned to the treatment with either EMD + DBBM (test: n = 20) or CM + DBBM (control: n = 20). At baseline and after 12 months, clinical parameters including probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) were recorded. The primary outcome variable was the change in CAL between baseline and 12 months. Results: At baseline, the intrabony component of the defects amounted to 6.1 ± 1.9 mm for EMD + DBBM and 6.0 ± 1.9 mm for CM + DBBM sites ( P = 0.81). The mean CAL gain at sites treated with EMD + DBBM was not statistically significantly different ( P = 0.82) compared with CM + DBBM (3.8 ± 1.5 versus 3.7 ± 1.2 mm). No statistically significant difference ( P = 0.62) was observed comparing the frequency of CAL gain ≥4 mm between EMD + DBBM (60%) and CM + DBBM (50%) or comparing the frequency of residual PD ≥6 mm between EMD + DBBM (5%) and CM + DBBM (15%) ( P = 0.21). Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present study, regenerative therapy using either EMD + DBBM or CM + DBBM yielded comparable clinical outcomes in deep non‐contained intrabony defects after 12 months.