[Clinical comparison between guided tissue regeneration and induced tissue regeneration]

Minerva Stomatol. 2003 Mar;52(3):105-10.
[Article in Italian]

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the present study was to evaluate, over a period of 1 y, 3 different surgical methods for the treatment of periodontal bone defects.

Methods: Thirty-six infrabone defects, at least 4 mm in depth, in non-smokers were enrolled in the study. Of these, 12 were treated with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) using a resorbable membrane with collagen, 12 with enamel matrix derivative (EMD) gel and 12 with a modified Widman flap (MWF). The pocket depth, attachment loss and gingival recession both before commencement of therapy and after an interval of 1 y are reported.

Results: The reduction in pocket depth was 4 mm, 4.4 mm, and 4.5 mm, respectively, for the control group, GTR group and EMD group. The attachment gain for the respective treatments was: MWF, 2 mm; GTR, 2.8 mm; EMD, 2.9 mm. Gingival recession was: MWF, 1.8 mm; GTR, 1.5 mm; EMD, 1.1 mm.

Conclusion: These findings show the efficacy of the 3 methods in the treatment of bone defects, but none of the 3 emerges as being statistically superior to the others 2.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • English Abstract

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Dental Enamel Proteins*
  • Female
  • Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal*
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Periodontal Pocket / surgery*
  • Surgical Flaps*

Substances

  • Dental Enamel Proteins
  • enamel matrix proteins