Comparison of infrabony defects treated with enamel matrix derivative versus guided tissue regeneration with a nonresorbable membrane

Abstract

The patients were reevaluated at one year postop. Probing attachment level (PAL) gain and PD reduction were analyzed. In the Emdogain group the PAL before surgery (PAL 0) and the PD before surgery (PD 0) were respectively 9.9+/-1.4 and 8.5+/-1.6 mm. The PAL gain and the PD reduction at 1 year postsurgery were respectively 4.1+/-1.8 and 5.3+/-1.9 mm. The group of patients treated with membranes showed that PAL 0 and PD 0 were respectively 8.9+/-1.9 and 8.1+/-1.9. The PAL gain was 4.3+/-1.9 mm and the PD reduction was 5.6+/-1.5 mm. The mean PAL gain expressed by percentage (PAL gain/PAL 0) for the group treated with EMD was 41%, while it was 48% for the group treated with GTR. Results from our analysis suggest that there is no statistically significant difference between GTR and EMD treatments in terms of PAL gain, PD reduction and recession variation. Applying the regression model to a group of patients with a PAL 0 > or =8 mm, we observed a better clinical outcome in terms of PAL gain (difference of 0.3 mm) in patients treated with the GTR procedure compared to those treated with EMD. Covariance analysis showed a strong correlation in both groups of patients between PAL gain and full mouth bleeding score, and between PAL gain and defect morphology and depth.

Periodontal regeneration in intrabony defects after application of enamel matrix proteins with guided tissue regeneration: An experimental study in dogs

“…Within the limits of our knowledge, the effects of EMP at the early stage (at 1, 2, and 4 weeks) of periodontal tissue healing have not been previously investigated in vivo. In contrast, the late stage (at 2, 3 or 5 months) of periodontal tissue healing following treatment of periodontal bone defects with GTR, EMP or GTR + EMP has been investigated (1,20,22). In this study, the amount of new cementum seen at 2 and 4 weeks after treatment was signifi cantly higher in the tissue treated with EMP and GTR than that treated with GTR alone.…”

Enamel matrix derivative and bone grafts for periodontal regeneration of intrabony defects. A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…In several studies [7][8][9][10] it was recognized that the morphology of the osseous defect plays an important role in the healing capacity of the defect itself. For example, in the presence of noncontained defects, the use of a non-resorbable titanium-reinforced membrane or the combination of a resorbable membrane with a grafting material has been advocated [11].…”

The Use of Enamel Matrix Derivative in the Treatment of Periodontal Defects: a Literature Review and Meta-analysis

“…Bleeding on probing during follow-up examinations adversely influenced the treatment outcomes (Heden et al, 1999;Heden, 2000;Zucchelli et al, 2002;Silvestri et al, 2003).…”