S Corbella1,2,3, A Alberti1,2, E Calciolari4, S Taschieri1,2,3, L Francetti1,2. 1. Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. 2. IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy. 3. Institute of Dentistry, I. M. Sechenov First Moscow state medical University, Moscow, Russia. 4. Centre for Oral Clinical Research & Centre for Oral Immunobiology and Regenerative Medicine, Institute of Dentistry, Barts and The London, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) alone or in association with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) for the treatment of partially contained intrabony defects. METHODS: A total of 20 two-walled intrabony defects belonging to nine patients were included. Ten defects were treated with EMD alone (test group 1) and the other 10 were treated with EMD and DBBM (test group 2), applying either modified papilla preservation technique or simplified papilla preservation technique. RESULTS: Twelve months after surgery, in the test group 1, PD was 2.8 ± 0.8 mm, REC was 2.3 ± 2.4 mm and CAL was 5.0 ± 2.8 mm, significantly reduced from baseline values (P < 0.05). Likewise, in test group 2, PD, REC and CAL reduced to 3.0 ± 0.7 mm, 3.9 ± 1.5 mm and 6.9 ± 1.1 mm respectively, from baseline values at 12 months (P < 0.05). No significant differences between groups were found. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the use of EMD alone and the use of a combination of EMD and DBBM for the treatment of partially contained defects showed comparable clinical and radiographic outcomes after 12 months.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) alone or in association with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) for the treatment of partially contained intrabony defects. METHODS: A total of 20 two-walled intrabony defects belonging to nine patients were included. Ten defects were treated with EMD alone (test group 1) and the other 10 were treated with EMD and DBBM (test group 2), applying either modified papilla preservation technique or simplified papilla preservation technique. RESULTS: Twelve months after surgery, in the test group 1, PD was 2.8 ± 0.8 mm, REC was 2.3 ± 2.4 mm and CAL was 5.0 ± 2.8 mm, significantly reduced from baseline values (P < 0.05). Likewise, in test group 2, PD, REC and CAL reduced to 3.0 ± 0.7 mm, 3.9 ± 1.5 mm and 6.9 ± 1.1 mm respectively, from baseline values at 12 months (P < 0.05). No significant differences between groups were found. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the use of EMD alone and the use of a combination of EMD and DBBM for the treatment of partially contained defects showed comparable clinical and radiographic outcomes after 12 months.