BACKGROUND: The use of the autogenous periosteal graft as biological barrier has been proposed for periodontal regeneration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the histometric findings of the subepithelial connective tissue graft as barrier in intrabony defects compared to a bioabsorbable membrane. METHODS: Three-walled intrabony defects were created surgically in the mesial aspect of the right and left maxillary canines in five healthy mongrel dogs. The defects were chronified, and two types of barriers were randomly carried out for guided tissue regeneration in a split-mouth design: the test group with a subepithelial connective tissue graft and the control group with a bioabsorbable membrane. The specimens were processed for histometric analyses of the epithelium (E), connective tissue (CT), newly formed cementum (NC), new bone (NB), and total newly formed tissues (NFT). RESULTS: The test side showed smaller mean of NC (3.6 ± 1.2), NB (2.1 ± 0.7), and NFT (7.7 ± 0.8) than the control group (NC 7.3 ± 0.5; NB 5.3 ± 1.3; NFT 10.1 ± 2.2; P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were verified for E (test 3.1 ± 2.0; control 2.8 ± 2.1; P > 0.05) and CT (test 2.5 ± 1.1; control 2.0 ± 0.5; P > 0.05) between groups. CONCLUSION: The bioabsorbable membrane was more effective in maintaining the space for periodontal regeneration than periosteal connective graft when used as barrier. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The bioabsorbable membrane showed more favorable regenerative results in intrabony defects in dogs than the subepithelial connective tissue graft as biological barrier.
BACKGROUND: The use of the autogenous periosteal graft as biological barrier has been proposed for periodontal regeneration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the histometric findings of the subepithelial connective tissue graft as barrier in intrabony defects compared to a bioabsorbable membrane. METHODS: Three-walled intrabony defects were created surgically in the mesial aspect of the right and left maxillary canines in five healthy mongrel dogs. The defects were chronified, and two types of barriers were randomly carried out for guided tissue regeneration in a split-mouth design: the test group with a subepithelial connective tissue graft and the control group with a bioabsorbable membrane. The specimens were processed for histometric analyses of the epithelium (E), connective tissue (CT), newly formed cementum (NC), new bone (NB), and total newly formed tissues (NFT). RESULTS: The test side showed smaller mean of NC (3.6 ± 1.2), NB (2.1 ± 0.7), and NFT (7.7 ± 0.8) than the control group (NC 7.3 ± 0.5; NB 5.3 ± 1.3; NFT 10.1 ± 2.2; P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were verified for E (test 3.1 ± 2.0; control 2.8 ± 2.1; P > 0.05) and CT (test 2.5 ± 1.1; control 2.0 ± 0.5; P > 0.05) between groups. CONCLUSION: The bioabsorbable membrane was more effective in maintaining the space for periodontal regeneration than periosteal connective graft when used as barrier. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The bioabsorbable membrane showed more favorable regenerative results in intrabony defects in dogs than the subepithelial connective tissue graft as biological barrier.
Authors: S K Kwan; V Lekovic; P M Camargo; P R Klokkevold; E B Kenney; M Nedic; B Dimitrijevic Journal: J Periodontol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 6.993