Dalia Rasheed Issa1, Khaled A Abdel-Ghaffar2, Mohamed A Al-Shahat3, Ahmed Abdel Aziz Hassan2, Vincent J Iacono4, Ahmed Y Gamal5. 1. Department of Oral Medicine and Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El Sheikh, Egypt. 2. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. 3. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Delta University for science and technology, Cairo, Egypt. 4. School of Dental Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA. 5. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Nahda University, Benisweif, Egypt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Perforated barrier membranes (PBM) were suggested to enhance periodontal regeneration by allowing positive charity of wanted elements from the gingival tissue side. The present study was designed to evaluate clinically and biochemically the use of PBM combined with simvastatin (SMV) gel with and without an associated EDTA gel root surface etching as a suggested option that could improve SMV availability and clinical outcomes of PBM. METHODS:Forty patients having moderate-to-severe chronic periodontitis with 40 intrabony defects were randomly divided into four treatment groups (10 sites each). Patients in group 1 received 1.2% SMV gel and covering the defect with occlusive membrane (OM). Patients in group 2 received 1.2% SMV gel and covering the defect with PBM. Group 3 received 24% EDTA root surface etching, 1.2% SMV gel, and defect coverage with OM (eOM). Patients in group 4 were treated as in group 3 but the defect was covered with PBM (ePBM). Clinical parameters were recorded at baseline before surgical procedures and were reassessed at 6 and 9 months after therapy. The mean concentration of SMV in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) was estimated by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography at days 1, 7, 14, 21, and 30. RESULTS: At 6- and 9-month observation periods, groups 3 and 4 showed a statistically significant improvement in PD reduction and CAL gain compared with groups 1 and 2. Group 4 showed a statistically significant more defect fill compared with groups 1, 2, and 3 (P ≤ .05). Group 2 showed statistically significant higher defect fill compared with group 1 and group 3 (P < .05). Bone density was significantly increased with no significant difference between the four groups at 6- and 9-month observation periods. SMV-GCF concentration in group 4 showed the highest mean concentration with no significant difference than that of group 3. CONCLUSION: The use of perforated barrier membranes in association with SMV enhances the clinical hard tissue parameters compared with occlusive ones in treating intrabony periodontal defects. Moreover, EDTA root surface treatment could enhance SMV availability in the defect area.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Perforated barrier membranes (PBM) were suggested to enhance periodontal regeneration by allowing positive charity of wanted elements from the gingival tissue side. The present study was designed to evaluate clinically and biochemically the use of PBM combined with simvastatin (SMV) gel with and without an associated EDTA gel root surface etching as a suggested option that could improve SMV availability and clinical outcomes of PBM. METHODS: Forty patients having moderate-to-severe chronic periodontitis with 40 intrabony defects were randomly divided into four treatment groups (10 sites each). Patients in group 1 received 1.2% SMV gel and covering the defect with occlusive membrane (OM). Patients in group 2 received 1.2% SMV gel and covering the defect with PBM. Group 3 received 24% EDTA root surface etching, 1.2% SMV gel, and defect coverage with OM (eOM). Patients in group 4 were treated as in group 3 but the defect was covered with PBM (ePBM). Clinical parameters were recorded at baseline before surgical procedures and were reassessed at 6 and 9 months after therapy. The mean concentration of SMV in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) was estimated by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography at days 1, 7, 14, 21, and 30. RESULTS: At 6- and 9-month observation periods, groups 3 and 4 showed a statistically significant improvement in PD reduction and CAL gain compared with groups 1 and 2. Group 4 showed a statistically significant more defect fill compared with groups 1, 2, and 3 (P ≤ .05). Group 2 showed statistically significant higher defect fill compared with group 1 and group 3 (P < .05). Bone density was significantly increased with no significant difference between the four groups at 6- and 9-month observation periods. SMV-GCF concentration in group 4 showed the highest mean concentration with no significant difference than that of group 3. CONCLUSION: The use of perforated barrier membranes in association with SMV enhances the clinical hard tissue parameters compared with occlusive ones in treating intrabony periodontal defects. Moreover, EDTA root surface treatment could enhance SMV availability in the defect area.
Authors: Balazs Feher; Karol Ali Apaza Alccayhuaman; Franz Josef Strauss; Jung-Seok Lee; Stefan Tangl; Ulrike Kuchler; Reinhard Gruber Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2021-06-07
Authors: Franciska Oberdiek; Carlos Ivan Vargas; Patrick Rider; Milijana Batinic; Oliver Görke; Milena Radenković; Stevo Najman; Jose Manuel Baena; Ole Jung; Mike Barbeck Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 5.923