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

Iorio-Siciliano, Vincenzo; Andreuccetti, Gianmaria; Blasi, Andrea; Matarasso, Marco; Sculean, Anton; Salvi, Giovanni (2014). 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. Journal of periodontology, 85(10), pp. 1342-1350. American Academy of Periodontology 10.1902/jop.2014.130420

[img] Text
Clinical Outcomes Following.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (1MB) | Request a copy

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.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > Department of Periodontology

UniBE Contributor:

Sculean, Anton and Salvi, Giovanni

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

0022-3492

Publisher:

American Academy of Periodontology

Language:

English

Submitter:

Eveline Carmen Schuler

Date Deposited:

19 Jan 2015 15:55

Last Modified:

25 Jan 2017 12:15

Publisher DOI:

10.1902/jop.2014.130420

PubMed ID:

24835417

Uncontrolled Keywords:

Bone substitutes, chronic periodontitis, dental enamel proteins, guided tissue regeneration, membranes, periodontal pocket

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.61685

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/61685

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback