Styliani Anoixiadou1, Andreas Parashis1,2, Ioannis Vouros1. 1. Department of Preventive Dentistry Periodontology and Implant Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, School of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. 2. Private Practice, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the efficacy of minimally invasive non-surgical technique (MINST) with or without enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in the treatment of intrabony defects ≤7 mm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to the two groups. The control group received MINST, while the experimental MINST+EMD. Clinical measurements were recorded at baseline and at 6 and 12 months, and radiographic measurements were made at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS: All subjects completed the study, 18 in each group. Significant improvements were observed in both groups at 12 months (p < .001) with no differences in mean PD reduction (4.0 ± 1.4 vs. 4.2 ± 1.7 mm), CAL gain (3.5 ± 1.4 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6 mm), and defect resolution (1.9 ± 1.1 vs. 1.8 ± 0.9 mm) for the MINST and the MINST+EMD groups, respectively (p > .05). A trend for greater pocket closure (PD ≤4 mm and no BoP) was achieved with the application of EMD (77.8% vs. 55.6% sites), particularly for sites with baseline PD ≤8 mm (92.3% vs. 69.2% sites), accompanied by an increased number of successful composite outcome results (61.1% vs. 44.4% sites). CONCLUSIONS: MINST demonstrates significant improvements 12 months after treatment of intrabony defects ≤7 mm. The additional application of EMD does not further improve the mean clinical or radiographic outcomes. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03622255).
AIM: To compare the efficacy of minimally invasive non-surgical technique (MINST) with or without enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in the treatment of intrabony defects ≤7 mm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to the two groups. The control group received MINST, while the experimental MINST+EMD. Clinical measurements were recorded at baseline and at 6 and 12 months, and radiographic measurements were made at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS: All subjects completed the study, 18 in each group. Significant improvements were observed in both groups at 12 months (p < .001) with no differences in mean PD reduction (4.0 ± 1.4 vs. 4.2 ± 1.7 mm), CAL gain (3.5 ± 1.4 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6 mm), and defect resolution (1.9 ± 1.1 vs. 1.8 ± 0.9 mm) for the MINST and the MINST+EMD groups, respectively (p > .05). A trend for greater pocket closure (PD ≤4 mm and no BoP) was achieved with the application of EMD (77.8% vs. 55.6% sites), particularly for sites with baseline PD ≤8 mm (92.3% vs. 69.2% sites), accompanied by an increased number of successful composite outcome results (61.1% vs. 44.4% sites). CONCLUSIONS: MINST demonstrates significant improvements 12 months after treatment of intrabony defects ≤7 mm. The additional application of EMD does not further improve the mean clinical or radiographic outcomes. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03622255).