Five‐year results following treatment of intrabony defects with enamel matrix proteins and guided tissue regeneration
- 10 May 2004
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Clinical Periodontology
- Vol. 31 (7) , 545-549
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.2004.00518.x
Abstract
Treatment with enamel matrix proteins (EMD) or guided tissue regeneration (GTR) has been shown to enhance periodontal regeneration. However, until now there are limited data on the long-term results following these treatment modalities. The aim of the present clinical study was to present the 5-year results following treatment of intrabony defects with EMD, GTR, combination of EMD and GTR, and open flap debridement (OFD). Forty-two patients, each of whom displayed one intrabony defect of a probing depth of at least 6 mm, were randomly treated with one of the four treatment modalities. The following parameters were evaluated prior to surgery, at 1 year and at 5 years after: plaque index, gingival index, bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth (PPD), gingival recession, and clinical attachment level (CAL). No statistically significant differences in any of the parameters were observed at baseline between the four groups. The sites treated with EMD demonstrated a mean CAL gain of 3.4+/-1.1 mm (p<0.001) and of 2.9+/-1.6 mm (p<0.001) at 1 and 5 years, respectively. The sites treated with GTR showed a mean CAL gain of 3.2+/-0.8 (p<0.001) at 1 year and of 2.7+/-0.9 mm (p<0.001) at 5 years. The mean CAL gain at sites treated with EMD+GTR was 3.0+/-1.0 mm (p<0.001) and 2.6+/-0.7 mm (p<0.001) at 1 and 5 years, respectively. The sites treated with OFD demonstrated a mean CAL gain of 1.6+/-1.0 mm (p<0.001) at 1 year and 1.3+/-1.2 mm (p<0.001) at 5 years. At 1 year, the only statistically significant difference between the four different treatments was found in terms of PPD reduction and CAL gain between EMD and OFD (p<0.05). However, at 5 years there were no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters between the four different treatments. Within the limits of the present study, it may be concluded that the short-term clinical results following treatment with EMD, GTR, EMD+GTR, and OFD can be maintained over a period of 5 years.Keywords
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- Supracrestal soft tissue preservation with enamel matrix proteins in treatment of deep intrabony defectsJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 2002
- Enamel matrix proteins in the regenerative therapy of deep intrabony defectsJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 2002
- Comparison of treatments of infrabony defects with enamel matrix derivative, guided tissue regeneration with a nonresorbable membrane and Widman modified flapJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 2000
- Generalizability of the Added Benefits of Guided Tissue Regeneration in the Treatment of Deep Intrabony Defects. Evaluation in a Multi‐Center Randomized Controlled Clinical TrialThe Journal of Periodontology, 1998
- Periodontal Regeneration of Human Intrabony Defects With Bioresorbable Membranes. A Controlled Clinical TrialThe Journal of Periodontology, 1996
- Long‐term stability of clinical attachment following guided tissue regeneration and conventional therapyJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 1996
- Long‐Term Evaluation of Periodontal Therapy: I. Response to 4 Therapeutic ModalitiesThe Journal of Periodontology, 1996
- Histologic Evaluation of New Attachment Apparatus Formation in HumansThe Journal of Periodontology, 1989
- Histometric evaluation of periodontal surgery II. Connective tissue attachment levels after four regenerative proceduresJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 1980
- The Gingival Index, the Plaque Index and the Retention Index SystemsThe Journal of Periodontology, 1967