Clinical comparison of bioabsorbable barriers with non-resorbable barriers in guided tissue regeneration in the treatment of human intrabony defects.

The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) non-resorbable barriers and polylactic acid bioabsorbable barriers in humans with intrabony defects due to periodontitis. Ten patients presented with 2 intrabony defects each. Mucoperiosteal flaps were performed. One of the defects was randomly assigned for placement of the ePTFE barrier over the roots and alveolar bone and the other defect with placement of the polylactic acid barrier. A minimum of 9 months after barrier placement, surgical reentry was performed. The data were evaluated by the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test and the Fisher exact test. Treatment with both types of barriers produced significant changes from baseline for all parameters, except in the ePTFE group for the amount of bony crest resorption (P = 0.055) and in the polylactic acid group for increased recession (P = 0.109). The results showed no significant differences between the barriers for any parameters: probing depth reduction (polylactic acid 2.60 +/- 1.90, ePTFE 2.80 +/- 1.40; P = 1.000); attachment gain (polylactic acid 1.40 +/- 1.43, ePTFE 1.90 +/- 1.29; P = 0.336); increased recession (polylactic acid 0.80 +/- 1.40, ePTFE 1.10 +/- 0.99; P = 0.531); amount of vertical bone fill (polylactic acid 1.60 +/- 1.84, ePTFE 2.00 +/- 2.49; P = 0.984); bony crest resorption (polylactic acid -1.30 +/- 1.06, ePTFE -1.30 +/- 1.63; P = 1.000); depth of bony defect reduction (polylactic acid 2.90 +/- 1.20, ePTFE 3.30 +/- 1.70; P = 0.750); width of bony defect reduction (polylactic acid 2.20 +/- 1.23, ePTFE 2.20 +/- 1.23; P = 0.875); or volumetric changes (polylactic acid 33.50 +/- 19.70 microl, ePTFE 34.00 +/- 18.40 microl; P = 0.750).

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes