Giovanni Barbagallo1, Umberto D'Urso2, Alessandro Psaila3, Dario Cultrera4. 1. Department of General Surgery and Surgical-Medical Specialties, School of Dentistry Italy, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 2. Private Dentistry in Catania. 3. Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Dental Clinic ASST, Santi Paolo e Carlo University of Milan, Italy. 4. Graduating School of Dentistry, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Abstract
FOCUSED CLINICAL QUESTION: After a quick overview on the original principles of guided periodontal regeneration (GTR), the aim of this paper focuses on the advantages of minimally invasive surgical techniques for periodontal regeneration/reconstruction. The specific clinical question to answer is: Are there new clinical parameters useful to choose the best minimal invasive surgery approach for each periodontal defect? An update of the decision trees is to propose after highlighting some clinical parameters deemed relevant for the choice of the most suitable minimally invasive surgical approach and which therefore are considered by us having a place in the new decision trees. SUMMARY: Starting from the paper of Evian dated 1985 until that of Aslan in 2017, we have analyzed the minimal periodontal surgical techniques proposed for the periodontal regeneration. In addition to the parameters set in the various flowcharts, we have highlighted the following additional parameters: papilla height loss; supra bone component of the defect; Δ Bone Sounding; width of keratinized tissue. CONCLUSION: The decision-making chart improved with the new clinically relevant factors may serve as a useful guideline for dentists, but to definitively validate it, further studies need to be developed in the future. In order to clarify the proposed flow chart, the authors present two different clinical cases.
FOCUSED CLINICAL QUESTION: After a quick overview on the original principles of guided periodontal regeneration (GTR), the aim of this paper focuses on the advantages of minimally invasive surgical techniques for periodontal regeneration/reconstruction. The specific clinical question to answer is: Are there new clinical parameters useful to choose the best minimal invasive surgery approach for each periodontal defect? An update of the decision trees is to propose after highlighting some clinical parameters deemed relevant for the choice of the most suitable minimally invasive surgical approach and which therefore are considered by us having a place in the new decision trees. SUMMARY: Starting from the paper of Evian dated 1985 until that of Aslan in 2017, we have analyzed the minimal periodontal surgical techniques proposed for the periodontal regeneration. In addition to the parameters set in the various flowcharts, we have highlighted the following additional parameters: papilla height loss; supra bone component of the defect; Δ Bone Sounding; width of keratinized tissue. CONCLUSION: The decision-making chart improved with the new clinically relevant factors may serve as a useful guideline for dentists, but to definitively validate it, further studies need to be developed in the future. In order to clarify the proposed flow chart, the authors present two different clinical cases.