AIM: The purpose of the present study was to compare clinically the treatment of deep intrabony defects with a combination of an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) and a bioactive glass (BG) to EMD alone. METHODS:Thirty patients (16 females and 14 males) suffering from advanced marginal periodontitis were included in this prospective, controlled parallel design multicenter study. In each of the patients, one intrabony defect was randomly treated with either EMD+BG (test) or with EMD alone (control). Clinical measurements were recorded at baseline and at 1 year following therapy. RESULTS: No differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at baseline between the two groups. Healing was uneventful in all patients. At 1 year after therapy, the test group showed a reduction in mean probing depth (PD) from 8.5+/-1.1 to 4.4+/-1.2 mm (p<0.001) and a change in mean clinical attachment level (CAL) from 10.4+/-1.5 to 7.1+/-1.5 mm (p<0.0001). In the control group, the mean PD was reduced from 8.5+/-1.5 to 4.0+/-1.6 mm (p<0.001) and the mean CAL changed from 10.2+/-2.1 to 6.3+/-2.2 mm (p<0.01). In the test group, 12 sites (80%) gained at least 3 mm or more of CAL, whereas in the control group a CAL gain of 3 mm or more was measured at 13 sites (87%). No statistically significant differences in terms of PD reduction and CAL gain were found between the test and the control treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the present study it can be concluded that: (i) at 1 year after surgery, both therapies resulted in significant PD reductions and CAL gains, and (ii) the combination of EMD+BG does not seem to additionally improve the clinical results. Copyright Blackwell Munksgaard, 2004.
RCT Entities:
AIM: The purpose of the present study was to compare clinically the treatment of deep intrabony defects with a combination of an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) and a bioactive glass (BG) to EMD alone. METHODS: Thirty patients (16 females and 14 males) suffering from advanced marginal periodontitis were included in this prospective, controlled parallel design multicenter study. In each of the patients, one intrabony defect was randomly treated with either EMD+BG (test) or with EMD alone (control). Clinical measurements were recorded at baseline and at 1 year following therapy. RESULTS: No differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at baseline between the two groups. Healing was uneventful in all patients. At 1 year after therapy, the test group showed a reduction in mean probing depth (PD) from 8.5+/-1.1 to 4.4+/-1.2 mm (p<0.001) and a change in mean clinical attachment level (CAL) from 10.4+/-1.5 to 7.1+/-1.5 mm (p<0.0001). In the control group, the mean PD was reduced from 8.5+/-1.5 to 4.0+/-1.6 mm (p<0.001) and the mean CAL changed from 10.2+/-2.1 to 6.3+/-2.2 mm (p<0.01). In the test group, 12 sites (80%) gained at least 3 mm or more of CAL, whereas in the control group a CAL gain of 3 mm or more was measured at 13 sites (87%). No statistically significant differences in terms of PD reduction and CAL gain were found between the test and the control treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the present study it can be concluded that: (i) at 1 year after surgery, both therapies resulted in significant PD reductions and CAL gains, and (ii) the combination of EMD+BG does not seem to additionally improve the clinical results. Copyright Blackwell Munksgaard, 2004.
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