OBJECTIVES: Comparison of the outcomes of a combination of an enamel matrix derivative and a synthetic bone graft (EMD/SBC) with EMD alone in wide intra-bony defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Seventy-three patients with chronic periodontitis were recruited in five centres in Germany. All patients had one wide intra-bony defect of >/=4 mm. Surgical procedures involved microsurgical technique and the modified papilla preservation flap. After debridement, defects were randomly assigned to EMD/SBC (test) or EMD (control). Assessments at baseline and after 6 months included bone sounding, attachment levels, probing pocket depths, bleeding on probing and recessions. Early wound-healing, adverse effects and patients' perceptions were also recorded. RESULTS: Both treatment modalities led to significant clinical improvements. Change in bone fill 6 months after surgery was 2.0 mm (+/- 2.1) in the test group and 2.1 mm (+/- 1.2) in the control group. A gain in clinical attachment of 1.3 mm (+/- 1.8) in the test group and 1.8 mm (+/- 1.6) in the control group was observed. One week after surgery, primary closure was maintained in 95% of the test sites and 100% of the control sites. No differences in patients' perceptions were found. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study showed similar clinical outcomes following both treatment modalities.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Comparison of the outcomes of a combination of an enamel matrix derivative and a synthetic bone graft (EMD/SBC) with EMD alone in wide intra-bony defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-three patients with chronic periodontitis were recruited in five centres in Germany. All patients had one wide intra-bony defect of >/=4 mm. Surgical procedures involved microsurgical technique and the modified papilla preservation flap. After debridement, defects were randomly assigned to EMD/SBC (test) or EMD (control). Assessments at baseline and after 6 months included bone sounding, attachment levels, probing pocket depths, bleeding on probing and recessions. Early wound-healing, adverse effects and patients' perceptions were also recorded. RESULTS: Both treatment modalities led to significant clinical improvements. Change in bone fill 6 months after surgery was 2.0 mm (+/- 2.1) in the test group and 2.1 mm (+/- 1.2) in the control group. A gain in clinical attachment of 1.3 mm (+/- 1.8) in the test group and 1.8 mm (+/- 1.6) in the control group was observed. One week after surgery, primary closure was maintained in 95% of the test sites and 100% of the control sites. No differences in patients' perceptions were found. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study showed similar clinical outcomes following both treatment modalities.