Michele Paolantonio1. 1. University G. D'Annunzio, Chieti School of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Combined periodontal regenerative technique (CPRT) is a surgical procedure that combines the use of barrier membranes with a filling material in the treatment of periodontal defects. The effectiveness of CPRT has been evaluated in many studies in comparison to GTR with membranes alone, but conflicting results have been obtained by different clinicians, particularly in the treatment of intrabony defects. The aim of the present study was to compare CPRT to GTR with collagen membranes in the treatment of human intrabony defects characterized by a relevant 1-wall component. METHODS:Thirty-four (34) healthy, non-smoking patients affected by moderate to severe chronic periodontitis participated in this study. Each patient had good oral hygiene and at least 1 radiographically detectable intrabony defect > or = 4 mm, with a 1-wall component of at least 50% of the defect, involving 2 tooth surfaces or more with a probing depth (PD) > or = 6 mm. Seventeen (17) subjects were randomly assigned to the test group and underwent CPRT by anorganic bovine bone and a collagen membrane, and 17 randomly assigned to the control group who received GTR with a collagen membrane alone. Pre- and post-therapy clinical parameters (probing depth [PD]; clinical attachment level [CAL]; gingival recession [GR]) and intrasurgical parameters (depth of intraosseous component [IOC]; level of the alveolar crest [ACL]) were compared between test and control groups 1 year after treatment. Vertical bone gain (VBG) from the base of the defect to the cemento-enamel junction was also evaluated in both groups. RESULTS: At the 1-year examination, clinical and intrasurgical parameters showed statistically significant changes within each experimental group from baseline. A statistically greater CAL gain was reported in the test group (P<0.05), whereas the control group exhibited more GR and alveolar crest resorption at a statistically significant level (P<0.01). VBG was significantly greater (P<0.01) at test sites (5.23 +/- 1.30 mm) compared to controls (3.82 +/- 1.28 mm). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the use of CPRT may be preferred when bioabsorbable membranes are used to treat intrabony defects characterized by unfavorable architecture.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Combined periodontal regenerative technique (CPRT) is a surgical procedure that combines the use of barrier membranes with a filling material in the treatment of periodontal defects. The effectiveness of CPRT has been evaluated in many studies in comparison to GTR with membranes alone, but conflicting results have been obtained by different clinicians, particularly in the treatment of intrabony defects. The aim of the present study was to compare CPRT to GTR with collagen membranes in the treatment of humanintrabony defects characterized by a relevant 1-wall component. METHODS: Thirty-four (34) healthy, non-smoking patients affected by moderate to severe chronic periodontitis participated in this study. Each patient had good oral hygiene and at least 1 radiographically detectable intrabony defect > or = 4 mm, with a 1-wall component of at least 50% of the defect, involving 2 tooth surfaces or more with a probing depth (PD) > or = 6 mm. Seventeen (17) subjects were randomly assigned to the test group and underwent CPRT by anorganic bovine bone and a collagen membrane, and 17 randomly assigned to the control group who received GTR with a collagen membrane alone. Pre- and post-therapy clinical parameters (probing depth [PD]; clinical attachment level [CAL]; gingival recession [GR]) and intrasurgical parameters (depth of intraosseous component [IOC]; level of the alveolar crest [ACL]) were compared between test and control groups 1 year after treatment. Vertical bone gain (VBG) from the base of the defect to the cemento-enamel junction was also evaluated in both groups. RESULTS: At the 1-year examination, clinical and intrasurgical parameters showed statistically significant changes within each experimental group from baseline. A statistically greater CAL gain was reported in the test group (P<0.05), whereas the control group exhibited more GR and alveolar crest resorption at a statistically significant level (P<0.01). VBG was significantly greater (P<0.01) at test sites (5.23 +/- 1.30 mm) compared to controls (3.82 +/- 1.28 mm). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the use of CPRT may be preferred when bioabsorbable membranes are used to treat intrabony defects characterized by unfavorable architecture.