Literature DB >> 10960017

A comparison between enamel matrix proteins used alone or in combination with bovine porous bone mineral in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects in humans.

V Lekovic1, P M Camargo, M Weinlaender, M Nedic, Z Aleksic, E B Kenney.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It has been shown that clinical improvement of intrabony periodontal defects can be achieved with the use of enamel matrix proteins (EMPs) or by grafting with bovine porous bone mineral (BPBM). There is no report on the potential synergistic effect of EMPs and BPBM in periodontal regenerative therapy. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of EMPs used alone or in combination with BPBM in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects in humans.
METHODS: Twenty-one paired intrabony defects were surgically treated using a split-mouth design. Intrabony defects were treated either with enamel matrix proteins (EMP group) or with enamel matrix proteins combined with bovine porous bone mineral (EMP/BPBM group). Re-entry surgeries were performed at 6 months.
RESULTS: Preoperative probing depths, attachment levels, and transoperative bone measurements were similar for the EMP and EMP/BPBM groups. Postsurgical measurements taken at 6 months revealed a significantly greater reduction in probing depth in the EMP/BPBM group (3.43 +/- 1.32 mm on buccal sites and 3.36 +/- 1.35 mm on lingual sites) when compared to the EMP group (1.91 +/- 1.42 mm on buccal sites and 1.85 +/- 1.38 mm on lingual sites). The EMP/BPBM group also presented with significantly more attachment gain (3.13 +/- 1.41 mm on buccal sites and 3.11 +/- 1.39 mm on lingual sites) than the EMP group (1.72 +/- 1.33 mm on buccal sites and 1.75 +/- 1.37 mm on lingual sites). Surgical re-entry of the treated defects revealed a significantly greater amount of defect fill in favor of the EMP/BPBM group (3.82 +/- 1.43 mm on buccal sites and 3.74 +/- 1.38 mm on lingual sites) as compared to the EMP group (1.33 +/1.17 mm on buccal sites and 1.41 +/- 1.19 mm on lingual sites).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that BPBM has the ability to augment the effects of EMPs in reducing probing depth, improving clinical attachment levels, and promoting defect fill when compared to presurgical levels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10960017     DOI: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.7.1110

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Periodontol        ISSN: 0022-3492            Impact factor:   6.993


  23 in total

1.  Demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft and platelet-rich plasma vs platelet-rich plasma alone in infrabony defects: a clinical and radiographic evaluation.

Authors:  Tunç Ilgenli; Nesrin Dündar; Betül Ilhan Kal
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2006-12-09       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Enamel matrix derivative alone or in combination with a bioactive glass in wide intrabony defects.

Authors:  Bahar Kuru; Selçuk Yilmaz; Kiliçaslan Argin; Ulkü Noyan
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2006-05-16       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Gene array of primary human osteoblasts exposed to enamel matrix derivative in combination with a natural bone mineral.

Authors:  Richard J Miron; Dieter D Bosshardt; Yufeng Zhang; Daniel Buser; Anton Sculean
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-05-03       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Effects of enamel matrix proteins in combination with a bovine-derived natural bone mineral for the repair of bone defects.

Authors:  Richard J Miron; Lingfei Wei; Dieter D Bosshardt; Daniel Buser; Anton Sculean; Yufeng Zhang
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Bone grafting material in combination with Osteogain for bone repair: a rat histomorphometric study.

Authors:  Yufeng Zhang; Dai Jing; Daniel Buser; Anton Sculean; Fatiha Chandad; Richard J Miron
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 6.  Enamel matrix derivative and bone grafts for periodontal regeneration of intrabony defects. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  M Matarasso; V Iorio-Siciliano; A Blasi; L Ramaglia; G E Salvi; A Sculean
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  Four-year results following treatment of intrabony periodontal defects with an enamel matrix derivative alone or combined with a biphasic calcium phosphate.

Authors:  Malgorzata Pietruska; Jan Pietruski; Katalin Nagy; Michel Brecx; Nicole Birgit Arweiler; Anton Sculean
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  Three-year results following regenerative periodontal surgery of advanced intrabony defects with enamel matrix derivative alone or combined with a synthetic bone graft.

Authors:  Thomas Hoffmann; Elyan Al-Machot; Jörg Meyle; Pia-Merete Jervøe-Storm; Søren Jepsen
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 3.573

9.  Histological healing after nonsurgical periodontal treatment with enamel matrix derivatives in canine experimental periodontitis.

Authors:  Ammar Shujaa Addin; Tatsuya Akizuki; Takanori Matsuura; Shu Hoshi; Takahiro Ikawa; Kiichi Maruyama; Wataru Ono; Shunsuke Fukuba; Yuichi Izumi
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2018-02-10       Impact factor: 2.634

10.  Comparative study of DFDBA in combination with enamel matrix derivative versus DFDBA alone for treatment of periodontal intrabony defects at 12 months post-surgery.

Authors:  Simone Domenico Aspriello; Luigi Ferrante; Corrado Rubini; Matteo Piemontese
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 3.573

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.