Journal of periodontology · 2012
Treatment of supra-alveolar-type defects by a simplified papilla preservation technique for access flap surgery with or without enamel matrix proteins.
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.
Di Tullio Marcella, Femminella Beatrice, Pilloni Andrea, Romano Luigi, D'Arcangelo Camillo, De Ninis Paolo, Paolantonio Michele
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In this study, we compare the effectiveness of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) associated with a simplified papilla preservation flap (SPPF) technique to SPPF alone when surgically treating supra-alveolar-type defects.
METHODS: Fifty patients, from 54 initially selected, presenting horizontal bone loss around ≥4 adjacent teeth, were treated by an SPPF technique; 25 participants also received EMD (test group) and 25 patients underwent flap surgery alone (control group). A complete clinical and radiographic examination was performed at baseline and 12 months after treatment. Pre- and post-therapy probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (GR), and radiographic bone level (BL) were compared between treatments.
RESULTS: After 12 months, PD, CAL, and GR in both groups showed significant differences from baseline (P <0.001). No differences in BL scores were observed within the groups at the 12-month examination. After 1 year, the test group showed significantly (P <0.001) greater PD reduction (3.4 ± 0.7 mm) and CAL gain (2.8 ± 0.8 mm) and a smaller GR increase (0.6 ± 0.4 mm) compared to the control group (PD, 2.2 ± 0.8 mm; CAL, 1.0 ± 0.6 mm; GR, 1.2 ± 0.7 mm.) BL changes did not significantly differ between the experimental groups.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that combining EMD and SPPF in the treatment of suprabony defects may lead to a greater clinical improvement compared to SPPF alone.
METHODS: Fifty patients, from 54 initially selected, presenting horizontal bone loss around ≥4 adjacent teeth, were treated by an SPPF technique; 25 participants also received EMD (test group) and 25 patients underwent flap surgery alone (control group). A complete clinical and radiographic examination was performed at baseline and 12 months after treatment. Pre- and post-therapy probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (GR), and radiographic bone level (BL) were compared between treatments.
RESULTS: After 12 months, PD, CAL, and GR in both groups showed significant differences from baseline (P <0.001). No differences in BL scores were observed within the groups at the 12-month examination. After 1 year, the test group showed significantly (P <0.001) greater PD reduction (3.4 ± 0.7 mm) and CAL gain (2.8 ± 0.8 mm) and a smaller GR increase (0.6 ± 0.4 mm) compared to the control group (PD, 2.2 ± 0.8 mm; CAL, 1.0 ± 0.6 mm; GR, 1.2 ± 0.7 mm.) BL changes did not significantly differ between the experimental groups.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that combining EMD and SPPF in the treatment of suprabony defects may lead to a greater clinical improvement compared to SPPF alone.