Serhat Aslan1, Nurcan Buduneli2, Pierpaolo Cortellini3,4. 1. Private Office Dr. Aslan, İzmir, Turkey. 2. Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Ege University, İzmir, Turkey. 3. Accademia Toscana di Ricerca Odontostomatologica (ATRO), Florence, Italy. 4. European Research Group on Periodontology (ERGOPERIO), Berne, Switzerland.
Abstract
AIM: This study compared the clinical efficacy of the entire papilla preservation technique (EPP) alone and in combination with enamel matrix proteins plus bovine-derived bone substitutes (EPP EMD + BS) in the treatment of isolated inter-dental intrabony defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Thirty patients, each with one isolated intrabony defect, were randomly assigned to EPP EMD + BS or EPP alone. Clinical outcomes were assessed 1-year post-surgery. RESULTS:Early healing phase was uneventful in all cases, and 100% primary wound closure was maintained throughout the study period. Intragroup differences between baseline and 1-year were statistically significant in both groups in terms of clinical attachment level (CAL) gain and probing depth (PD) reduction (p ≤ .001). No statistically significant differences were detected in gingival recession (REC) (p > .05). No statistically significant differences were detected in terms of CAL gain (6.3 ± 2.5 mm vs. 5.83 ± 1.12 mm), PD reduction (6.5 ± 2.65 mm vs. 6.2 ± 1.33 mm) or increase in gingival recession (0.2 ± 0.25 mm vs. 0.36 ± 0.54 mm) between the groups treated with EPP EMD + BS or EPP alone. CONCLUSIONS: Application of EPP with and without regenerative biomaterials resulted in significant amounts of CAL gain and PD reduction, with negligible increase in gingival recession. Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that the addition of regenerative biomaterials does not improve the clinical outcomes of EPP alone. NCT03923465.
RCT Entities:
AIM: This study compared the clinical efficacy of the entire papilla preservation technique (EPP) alone and in combination with enamel matrix proteins plus bovine-derived bone substitutes (EPP EMD + BS) in the treatment of isolated inter-dental intrabony defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty patients, each with one isolated intrabony defect, were randomly assigned to EPP EMD + BS or EPP alone. Clinical outcomes were assessed 1-year post-surgery. RESULTS: Early healing phase was uneventful in all cases, and 100% primary wound closure was maintained throughout the study period. Intragroup differences between baseline and 1-year were statistically significant in both groups in terms of clinical attachment level (CAL) gain and probing depth (PD) reduction (p ≤ .001). No statistically significant differences were detected in gingival recession (REC) (p > .05). No statistically significant differences were detected in terms of CAL gain (6.3 ± 2.5 mm vs. 5.83 ± 1.12 mm), PD reduction (6.5 ± 2.65 mm vs. 6.2 ± 1.33 mm) or increase in gingival recession (0.2 ± 0.25 mm vs. 0.36 ± 0.54 mm) between the groups treated with EPP EMD + BS or EPP alone. CONCLUSIONS: Application of EPP with and without regenerative biomaterials resulted in significant amounts of CAL gain and PD reduction, with negligible increase in gingival recession. Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that the addition of regenerative biomaterials does not improve the clinical outcomes of EPP alone. NCT03923465.