Vincenzo Iorio-Siciliano1, Andrea Blasi2, Stefan-Ioan Stratul3, Luca Ramaglia2, Vela Octavia3, Giovanni E Salvi4, Anton Sculean4. 1. Department of Periodontology, University of Naples Federico II, Via S Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy. enzois@libero.it. 2. Department of Periodontology, University of Naples Federico II, Via S Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy. 3. Department of Periodontology, Victor Babes University, Piata Eftimie 2, 300041, Timisoara, Romania. 4. Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the healing of suprabony defects following treatment with either open flap debridement (OFD) and application of an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) with OFD alone. METHODS:Eighty patients with suprabony periodontal defects were randomly assigned to treatment with OFD + EMD (test) or OFD alone (control). The primary outcome variable was the difference in clinical attachment level (CAL) gain. At baseline and after 12 months, full-mouth plaque scores (FMPS), full-mouth bleeding scores (FMBS), probing depths (PD), gingival recessions (GR), and CAL were recorded. RESULTS:Sixty-five patients were available for the 12-month follow-up examination. At 12 months, the mean FMPS was 21.9 ± 3.0% in the OFD + EMD and 21.1 ± 2.4% in the OFD group, respectively (p = 0.30), while mean FMBS measured 20.4 ± 3.4% in the OFD + EMD group and 19.9 ± 2.9% in the OFD group (p = 0.48). Mean CAL gain at sites treated with OFD + EMD was statistically significantly different (p = 0.0001) compared with sites treated with OFD alone (3.4 ± 0.6 mm vs 1.8 ± 0.6 mm). A statistically significant difference (p = 0.0001) was found between mean PD change in the OFD + EMD (3.9 ± 0.6 mm) and OFD alone (3.2 ± 0.6 mm) treated groups and also in terms of mean GR change between treatment with OFD + EMD (0.5 ± 0.7 mm) and OFD alone (1.4 ± 1.0 mm) (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Within their limits, the present results indicate that in suprabony periodontal defects, the application of EMD in conjunction with OFD may additionally improve the clinical outcomes compared with OFD alone. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In periodontal suprabony defects, the application of EMD in conjunction with OFD may additionally enhance the clinical outcomes in terms of CAL gain and PD reduction.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the healing of suprabony defects following treatment with either open flap debridement (OFD) and application of an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) with OFD alone. METHODS: Eighty patients with suprabony periodontal defects were randomly assigned to treatment with OFD + EMD (test) or OFD alone (control). The primary outcome variable was the difference in clinical attachment level (CAL) gain. At baseline and after 12 months, full-mouth plaque scores (FMPS), full-mouth bleeding scores (FMBS), probing depths (PD), gingival recessions (GR), and CAL were recorded. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were available for the 12-month follow-up examination. At 12 months, the mean FMPS was 21.9 ± 3.0% in the OFD + EMD and 21.1 ± 2.4% in the OFD group, respectively (p = 0.30), while mean FMBS measured 20.4 ± 3.4% in the OFD + EMD group and 19.9 ± 2.9% in the OFD group (p = 0.48). Mean CAL gain at sites treated with OFD + EMD was statistically significantly different (p = 0.0001) compared with sites treated with OFD alone (3.4 ± 0.6 mm vs 1.8 ± 0.6 mm). A statistically significant difference (p = 0.0001) was found between mean PD change in the OFD + EMD (3.9 ± 0.6 mm) and OFD alone (3.2 ± 0.6 mm) treated groups and also in terms of mean GR change between treatment with OFD + EMD (0.5 ± 0.7 mm) and OFD alone (1.4 ± 1.0 mm) (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Within their limits, the present results indicate that in suprabony periodontal defects, the application of EMD in conjunction with OFD may additionally improve the clinical outcomes compared with OFD alone. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In periodontal suprabony defects, the application of EMD in conjunction with OFD may additionally enhance the clinical outcomes in terms of CAL gain and PD reduction.
Authors: Marcella Di Tullio; Beatrice Femminella; Andrea Pilloni; Luigi Romano; Camillo D'Arcangelo; Paolo De Ninis; Michele Paolantonio Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: Andrea Roccuzzo; Jean-Claude Imber; Alexandra Stähli; Dimitrios Kloukos; Giovanni E Salvi; Anton Sculean Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 3.606