Journal of periodontology · 2013
Five-year results evaluating the effects of platelet-rich plasma on the healing of intrabony defects treated with enamel matrix derivative and natural bone mineral.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Döri Ferenc, Arweiler Nicole, Húszár Tamás, Gera István, Miron Richard J, Sculean Anton
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Regenerative periodontal surgery using the combination of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and natural bone mineral (NBM) with and without addition of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been shown to result in substantial clinical improvements, but the long-term effects of this combination are unknown.
METHODS: The goal of this study was to evaluate the long-term (5-year) outcomes after regenerative surgery of deep intrabony defects with either EMD + NBM + PRP or EMD + NBM. Twenty-four patients were included. In each patient, one intrabony defect was randomly treated with either EMD + NBM + PRP or EMD + NBM. Clinical parameters were evaluated at baseline and 1 and 5 years after treatment. The primary outcome variable was clinical attachment level (CAL).
RESULTS: The sites treated with EMD + NBM + PRP demonstrated a mean CAL change from 10.5 ± 1.6 to 6.0 ± 1.7 mm (P <0.001) at 1 year and 6.2 ± 1.5 mm (P <0.001) at 5 years. EMD + NBM-treated defects showed a mean CAL change from 10.6 ± 1.7 to 6.1 ± 1.5 mm (P <0.001) at 1 year and 6.3 ± 1.4 mm (P <0.001) at 5 years. At 1 year, a CAL gain of ≥4 mm was measured in 83% (10 of 12) of the defects treated with EMD + NBM + PRP and in 100% (all 12) of the defects treated with EMD + NBM. Compared to baseline, in both groups at 5 years, a CAL gain of ≥4 mm was measured in 75% (nine of 12 in each group) of the defects. Four sites in the EMD + PRP + NBM group lost 1 mm of the CAL gained at 1 year. In the EMD + NBM group, one defect lost 2 mm and four other defects lost 1 mm of the CAL gained at 1 year. No statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Within their limits, the present results indicate that: 1) the clinical outcomes obtained with both treatments can be maintained up to a period of 5 years; and 2) the use of PRP does not appear to improve the results obtained with EMD + NBM.
METHODS: The goal of this study was to evaluate the long-term (5-year) outcomes after regenerative surgery of deep intrabony defects with either EMD + NBM + PRP or EMD + NBM. Twenty-four patients were included. In each patient, one intrabony defect was randomly treated with either EMD + NBM + PRP or EMD + NBM. Clinical parameters were evaluated at baseline and 1 and 5 years after treatment. The primary outcome variable was clinical attachment level (CAL).
RESULTS: The sites treated with EMD + NBM + PRP demonstrated a mean CAL change from 10.5 ± 1.6 to 6.0 ± 1.7 mm (P <0.001) at 1 year and 6.2 ± 1.5 mm (P <0.001) at 5 years. EMD + NBM-treated defects showed a mean CAL change from 10.6 ± 1.7 to 6.1 ± 1.5 mm (P <0.001) at 1 year and 6.3 ± 1.4 mm (P <0.001) at 5 years. At 1 year, a CAL gain of ≥4 mm was measured in 83% (10 of 12) of the defects treated with EMD + NBM + PRP and in 100% (all 12) of the defects treated with EMD + NBM. Compared to baseline, in both groups at 5 years, a CAL gain of ≥4 mm was measured in 75% (nine of 12 in each group) of the defects. Four sites in the EMD + PRP + NBM group lost 1 mm of the CAL gained at 1 year. In the EMD + NBM group, one defect lost 2 mm and four other defects lost 1 mm of the CAL gained at 1 year. No statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Within their limits, the present results indicate that: 1) the clinical outcomes obtained with both treatments can be maintained up to a period of 5 years; and 2) the use of PRP does not appear to improve the results obtained with EMD + NBM.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAlveolar Bone LossBone TransplantationChronic PeriodontitisDental DisinfectantsDental Enamel ProteinsDental ScalingEdetic AcidFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGingival RecessionGuided Tissue Regeneration, PeriodontalHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPeriodontal Attachment LossPeriodontal IndexPeriodontal PocketPlatelet-Rich PlasmaRadiography, BitewingRoot PlaningSurgical FlapsTreatment OutcomeWound Healing