BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to compare the treatment of deep intrabony defects with a combination of an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) and a bioactive glass (BG) to BG alone. METHODS:Twenty-eight patients with chronic periodontitis, each of whom displayed 1 intrabony defect, were randomly treated with a combination of EMD and BG or with BG alone. Soft tissue measurements were made at baseline and at 1 year following therapy. RESULTS: No differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at baseline between the 2 groups. Healing was uneventful in all patients. At 1 year after therapy, the sites treated with EMD and BG showed a reduction in mean probing depth (PD) from 8.07 +/- 1.14 mm to 3.92 +/- 0.73 mm and a change in mean clinical attachment level (CAL) from 9.64 +/- 1.59 mm to 6.42 +/- 1.08 mm (P < 0.0001). In the group treated with BG, the mean PD was reduced from 8.07 +/- 1.32 mm to 3.85 +/- 0.66 mm and the mean CAL changed from 9.78 +/- 1.71 mm to 6.71 +/- 1.89 mm (P < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed between the test and control group. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that both therapies led to significant improvements of the investigated clinical parameters, and the combination of enamel matrix derivative and bioactive glass does not seem to additionally improve the clinical outcome of the therapy.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to compare the treatment of deep intrabony defects with a combination of an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) and a bioactive glass (BG) to BG alone. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with chronic periodontitis, each of whom displayed 1 intrabony defect, were randomly treated with a combination of EMD and BG or with BG alone. Soft tissue measurements were made at baseline and at 1 year following therapy. RESULTS: No differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at baseline between the 2 groups. Healing was uneventful in all patients. At 1 year after therapy, the sites treated with EMD and BG showed a reduction in mean probing depth (PD) from 8.07 +/- 1.14 mm to 3.92 +/- 0.73 mm and a change in mean clinical attachment level (CAL) from 9.64 +/- 1.59 mm to 6.42 +/- 1.08 mm (P < 0.0001). In the group treated with BG, the mean PD was reduced from 8.07 +/- 1.32 mm to 3.85 +/- 0.66 mm and the mean CAL changed from 9.78 +/- 1.71 mm to 6.71 +/- 1.89 mm (P < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed between the test and control group. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that both therapies led to significant improvements of the investigated clinical parameters, and the combination of enamel matrix derivative and bioactive glass does not seem to additionally improve the clinical outcome of the therapy.
Authors: Nayer S AboElsaad; Mena Soory; Laila M A Gadalla; Laila I Ragab; Stephen Dunne; Khaled R Zalata; Chris Louca Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2008-06-26 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Nayer S AboElsaad; Mena Soory; Laila M A Gadalla; Laila I Ragab; Stephen Dunne; Khaled R Zalata; Chris Louca Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2008-07-15 Impact factor: 3.161