Treatment of intrabony defects with enamel matrix proteins and guided tissue regeneration: A prospective controlled clinical study

Anton Sculean, Péter Windisch, Giovanni Carlo Chiantella, Nikolaos Donos, Michel Brecx, Elmar Reich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

113 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Utilisation of enamel matrix proteins (EMD) and application of the guided tissue regeneration principle (GTR) are treatment modalities which both have been shown to result in periodontal regeneration. However, it is yet unknown whether the combination of EMD and GTR may additionally favor the regeneration process. Aim: The aim of the present controlled study was to evaluate clinically the treatment effect of EMD, GTR, combination of EMD and GTR, and flap surgery (control) on intrabony defects. Material and Methods: 56 patients each of whom displaying one intrabony defect of a depth of at least 6 mm were randomly treated with one of the treatment modalities. Prior to surgery and at one year after, the following parameters were evaluated by a blinded examiner: Plaque index (PlI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depth (PPD), gingival recession (GR) and clinical attachment level (CAL). No statistical significant differences between the four groups were observed at baseline for any of the investigated parameters. Results: At 1 year after therapy, the sites treated with EMD demonstrated a mean PPD reduction of 4.1±1.7 mm and a mean CAL gain of 3.4±1.5 mm (p<0.001). The sites treated with GTR showed a mean PPD reduction of 4.2±1.9 mm and a mean CAL gain of 3.1±1.5 mm (p<0.001). The sites treated with the combined treatment showed a mean PPD reduction of 4.3±1.4 mm and a mean CAL gain of 3.4±1.1 mm (p<0.001). In the control group, the mean PPD reduction was 3.7±1.4 mm (p<0.001) and the mean CAL gain measured 1.7±1.5 mm (p<0.01). All 4 treatments led to statistically significant PPD reduction and CAL gain. All three regenerative treatments led to higher CAL gain than the control treatment (p<0.05). No statistical significant differences in PPD reduction and CAL gain were observed between the three regenerative treatments. Conclusion: It may be concluded that (a) all 3 regenerative treatment modalities may lead to higher CAL gain than the control one, and (b) the combined treatment does not seem to improve the outcome of the regenerative procedure.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)397-403
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Clinical Periodontology
Volume28
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2001

Keywords

  • Bioresorbable membranes
  • Controlled clinical trial
  • Enamel matrix proteins
  • Guided tissue regeneration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Periodontics

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Treatment of intrabony defects with enamel matrix proteins and guided tissue regeneration: A prospective controlled clinical study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this