Journal of periodontology · 2020
Clinical, radiographic, and patient-centered outcomes after use of enamel matrix proteins for the treatment of intrabony defects in patients with aggressive periodontitis: A 12-month multicenter clinical trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fileto Mazzonetto Ana Lívia, Casarin Renato Corrêa Viana, Santamaria Mauro Pedrine, Andere Naira Maria Rebelatto Bechara, Araújo Cássia Fernandes, Videira Clima da Silva Rafaela, Purisaca Javier Eduardo Vivanco, Sallum Enilson Antonio, Sallum Antonio Wilson
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical, radiographic and patient-centered results of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) therapy in intrabony defects in aggressive periodontitis (AgP) patients and compare them with those in chronic periodontitis (CP) patients.
METHODS: Sixty intrabony defects in AgP and CP patients associated with ≥ 6 mm residual probing pocket depth (PPD) were included and randomly assigned to one of three groups: AgP+CS (conservative surgery) (n = 20); AgP+CS/EMD (n = 20); CP+CS/EMD (n = 20). Clinical parameters were measured at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Defect resolution (DR) and bone filling (BF) were used for radiographic analysis. The quality of life was recorded at baseline and 6 months using OHIP-14 and VAS scale in the early post-therapy period.
RESULTS: PPD and relative clinical attachment level (rCAL) improved for all groups during follow-up (P ≤ 0.05), and AgP+CS/EMD presented a higher rCAL gain (2.4 ± 1.0 mm) when compared to AgP control patients (1.6 ± 1.6 mm, P ≤ 0.05) after 12 months. No difference was observed between AgP+CS/EMD and CP+CS/EMD groups (P > 0.05). No radiographic differences were observed among groups at any time point (P > 0.05). All the groups reported a positive impact on OHIP-14 total score, without differences among them.
CONCLUSIONS: EMD therapy of intrabony defects promotes additional benefits in AgP patients, presenting a similar regeneration rate compared to CP patients, and has proven to be a viable therapy for the treatment of individuals with AgP.
METHODS: Sixty intrabony defects in AgP and CP patients associated with ≥ 6 mm residual probing pocket depth (PPD) were included and randomly assigned to one of three groups: AgP+CS (conservative surgery) (n = 20); AgP+CS/EMD (n = 20); CP+CS/EMD (n = 20). Clinical parameters were measured at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Defect resolution (DR) and bone filling (BF) were used for radiographic analysis. The quality of life was recorded at baseline and 6 months using OHIP-14 and VAS scale in the early post-therapy period.
RESULTS: PPD and relative clinical attachment level (rCAL) improved for all groups during follow-up (P ≤ 0.05), and AgP+CS/EMD presented a higher rCAL gain (2.4 ± 1.0 mm) when compared to AgP control patients (1.6 ± 1.6 mm, P ≤ 0.05) after 12 months. No difference was observed between AgP+CS/EMD and CP+CS/EMD groups (P > 0.05). No radiographic differences were observed among groups at any time point (P > 0.05). All the groups reported a positive impact on OHIP-14 total score, without differences among them.
CONCLUSIONS: EMD therapy of intrabony defects promotes additional benefits in AgP patients, presenting a similar regeneration rate compared to CP patients, and has proven to be a viable therapy for the treatment of individuals with AgP.