Comparison of clinical, radiographic, and histometric measurements following treatment with guided tissue regeneration or enamel matrix proteins in human periodontal defects

P. Windisch, Anton Sculean, Filip Klein, Vilmos Tóth, I. Gera, Elmar Reich, Peter Eickholz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

66 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic parameters with the histometric findings following 2 different regenerative procedures in humans. Methods: Fourteen advanced intrabony defects at teeth scheduled for extraction were randomly treated as follows: 8 with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) using bioabsorbable barriers and 6 with an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD). Standardized radiographs, probing depths (PD), and attachment levels (CAL) at baseline and 6 months after therapy were evaluated and compared to the histometric measurements made following the removal of teeth and surrounding tissues 6 months after the surgery. Results: Significant PD reductions (GTR: -5.62 mm; EMD: -5.00 mm) and CAL gains (GTR: 3.87 mm; EMD: 2.67 mm) were observed in both groups. Six months after surgery, minor resorptions of the alveolar crest (AC) (GTR: 0.40 mm; EMD: 0.33 mm) and bony gain at the bottom of the defects (GTR: 0.47 mm; EMD: 1.05 mm) were observed radiographically. No statistically significant differences in the change of clinical and radiographic parameters between the GTR and EMD groups were found. Histometrically, significant amounts of new connective tissue attachment (i.e., cementum with inserting collagen fibers) were observed in both groups (GTR: 2.29 mm; EMD: 1.81 mm). Bone regeneration was found to be significant only in the GTR group (GTR: 1.93 mm; EMD: 0.78 mm). However, the study lacked statistical power for determining equivalence between the groups. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, it may be concluded that at 6 months after GTR or enamel matrix protein derivative therapy, formation of new cementum and bone may be histometrically demonstrated. Except for the formation of new bone, no statistically significant differences between both therapies could be seen for clinical, radiographic, and histometric results 6 months after surgery.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)409-417
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Periodontology
Volume73
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002

Fingerprint

Guided Tissue Regeneration
Dental Cementum
enamel matrix proteins
Alveolar Bone Loss
Minor Surgical Procedures
Tooth Extraction
Bone Regeneration
Osteogenesis
Connective Tissue
Tooth
Collagen
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Bone regeneration
  • Follow-up studies
  • Guided tissue regeneration
  • Membranes, barrier
  • Membranes, bioabsorbable
  • Polylactic acid/therapeutic use
  • Proteins, enamel matrix

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Comparison of clinical, radiographic, and histometric measurements following treatment with guided tissue regeneration or enamel matrix proteins in human periodontal defects. / Windisch, P.; Sculean, Anton; Klein, Filip; Tóth, Vilmos; Gera, I.; Reich, Elmar; Eickholz, Peter.

In: Journal of Periodontology, Vol. 73, No. 4, 2002, p. 409-417.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e1aabaee0bc64d8e8f958a8e834db0d6,
title = "Comparison of clinical, radiographic, and histometric measurements following treatment with guided tissue regeneration or enamel matrix proteins in human periodontal defects",
abstract = "Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic parameters with the histometric findings following 2 different regenerative procedures in humans. Methods: Fourteen advanced intrabony defects at teeth scheduled for extraction were randomly treated as follows: 8 with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) using bioabsorbable barriers and 6 with an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD). Standardized radiographs, probing depths (PD), and attachment levels (CAL) at baseline and 6 months after therapy were evaluated and compared to the histometric measurements made following the removal of teeth and surrounding tissues 6 months after the surgery. Results: Significant PD reductions (GTR: -5.62 mm; EMD: -5.00 mm) and CAL gains (GTR: 3.87 mm; EMD: 2.67 mm) were observed in both groups. Six months after surgery, minor resorptions of the alveolar crest (AC) (GTR: 0.40 mm; EMD: 0.33 mm) and bony gain at the bottom of the defects (GTR: 0.47 mm; EMD: 1.05 mm) were observed radiographically. No statistically significant differences in the change of clinical and radiographic parameters between the GTR and EMD groups were found. Histometrically, significant amounts of new connective tissue attachment (i.e., cementum with inserting collagen fibers) were observed in both groups (GTR: 2.29 mm; EMD: 1.81 mm). Bone regeneration was found to be significant only in the GTR group (GTR: 1.93 mm; EMD: 0.78 mm). However, the study lacked statistical power for determining equivalence between the groups. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, it may be concluded that at 6 months after GTR or enamel matrix protein derivative therapy, formation of new cementum and bone may be histometrically demonstrated. Except for the formation of new bone, no statistically significant differences between both therapies could be seen for clinical, radiographic, and histometric results 6 months after surgery.",
keywords = "Bone regeneration, Follow-up studies, Guided tissue regeneration, Membranes, barrier, Membranes, bioabsorbable, Polylactic acid/therapeutic use, Proteins, enamel matrix",
author = "P. Windisch and Anton Sculean and Filip Klein and Vilmos T{\'o}th and I. Gera and Elmar Reich and Peter Eickholz",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1902/jop.2002.73.4.409",
language = "English",
volume = "73",
pages = "409--417",
journal = "Journal of Periodontology",
issn = "0022-3492",
publisher = "American Academy of Periodontology",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of clinical, radiographic, and histometric measurements following treatment with guided tissue regeneration or enamel matrix proteins in human periodontal defects

AU - Windisch, P.

AU - Sculean, Anton

AU - Klein, Filip

AU - Tóth, Vilmos

AU - Gera, I.

AU - Reich, Elmar

AU - Eickholz, Peter

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic parameters with the histometric findings following 2 different regenerative procedures in humans. Methods: Fourteen advanced intrabony defects at teeth scheduled for extraction were randomly treated as follows: 8 with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) using bioabsorbable barriers and 6 with an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD). Standardized radiographs, probing depths (PD), and attachment levels (CAL) at baseline and 6 months after therapy were evaluated and compared to the histometric measurements made following the removal of teeth and surrounding tissues 6 months after the surgery. Results: Significant PD reductions (GTR: -5.62 mm; EMD: -5.00 mm) and CAL gains (GTR: 3.87 mm; EMD: 2.67 mm) were observed in both groups. Six months after surgery, minor resorptions of the alveolar crest (AC) (GTR: 0.40 mm; EMD: 0.33 mm) and bony gain at the bottom of the defects (GTR: 0.47 mm; EMD: 1.05 mm) were observed radiographically. No statistically significant differences in the change of clinical and radiographic parameters between the GTR and EMD groups were found. Histometrically, significant amounts of new connective tissue attachment (i.e., cementum with inserting collagen fibers) were observed in both groups (GTR: 2.29 mm; EMD: 1.81 mm). Bone regeneration was found to be significant only in the GTR group (GTR: 1.93 mm; EMD: 0.78 mm). However, the study lacked statistical power for determining equivalence between the groups. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, it may be concluded that at 6 months after GTR or enamel matrix protein derivative therapy, formation of new cementum and bone may be histometrically demonstrated. Except for the formation of new bone, no statistically significant differences between both therapies could be seen for clinical, radiographic, and histometric results 6 months after surgery.

AB - Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic parameters with the histometric findings following 2 different regenerative procedures in humans. Methods: Fourteen advanced intrabony defects at teeth scheduled for extraction were randomly treated as follows: 8 with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) using bioabsorbable barriers and 6 with an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD). Standardized radiographs, probing depths (PD), and attachment levels (CAL) at baseline and 6 months after therapy were evaluated and compared to the histometric measurements made following the removal of teeth and surrounding tissues 6 months after the surgery. Results: Significant PD reductions (GTR: -5.62 mm; EMD: -5.00 mm) and CAL gains (GTR: 3.87 mm; EMD: 2.67 mm) were observed in both groups. Six months after surgery, minor resorptions of the alveolar crest (AC) (GTR: 0.40 mm; EMD: 0.33 mm) and bony gain at the bottom of the defects (GTR: 0.47 mm; EMD: 1.05 mm) were observed radiographically. No statistically significant differences in the change of clinical and radiographic parameters between the GTR and EMD groups were found. Histometrically, significant amounts of new connective tissue attachment (i.e., cementum with inserting collagen fibers) were observed in both groups (GTR: 2.29 mm; EMD: 1.81 mm). Bone regeneration was found to be significant only in the GTR group (GTR: 1.93 mm; EMD: 0.78 mm). However, the study lacked statistical power for determining equivalence between the groups. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, it may be concluded that at 6 months after GTR or enamel matrix protein derivative therapy, formation of new cementum and bone may be histometrically demonstrated. Except for the formation of new bone, no statistically significant differences between both therapies could be seen for clinical, radiographic, and histometric results 6 months after surgery.

KW - Bone regeneration

KW - Follow-up studies

KW - Guided tissue regeneration

KW - Membranes, barrier

KW - Membranes, bioabsorbable

KW - Polylactic acid/therapeutic use

KW - Proteins, enamel matrix

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036254375&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036254375&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1902/jop.2002.73.4.409

DO - 10.1902/jop.2002.73.4.409

M3 - Article

VL - 73

SP - 409

EP - 417

JO - Journal of Periodontology

JF - Journal of Periodontology

SN - 0022-3492

IS - 4

ER -