Journal of clinical periodontology · 2024
The flapless approach with and without enamel matrix derivatives for the treatment of intrabony defects: A randomized controlled clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Aimetti Mario, Stasikelyte Morta, Mariani Giulia Maria, Cricenti Luca, Baima Giacomo, Romano Federica
Аннотация
AIM: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of flapless procedure alone or in combination with enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) in the treatment of deep intrabony defects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients re-evaluated after non-surgical therapy were randomly assigned to the test (flapless with EMD) or control group (flapless alone). Clinical measurements were recorded pre-surgery and at 6 and 12 months after surgery, and radiographic measurements were taken pre-surgery and after 12 months.
RESULTS: Forty-six patients completed the study. Improvements were observed in both groups at 12 months for mean clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, with significant differences between test (3.9 ± 1.1 mm) and control groups (3.0 ± 1.2) (p = .017). Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (4.0 ± 0.7 vs. 3.3 ± 1.4 mm) was also near to statistical significance (p = .051). Also, more sites achieved successful composite outcome measure (final PPD ≤ 4 mm and CAL gain ≥3 mm) for the regenerative treatment in the flapless + EMD group (82.6% vs. 52.2%; p = .028). In terms of radiographic outcomes, EMD yielded a greater defect bone fill than flapless treatment alone (3.0 ± 1.0 mm vs. 1.8 ± 1.5 mm; p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: The additional application of EMD during the flapless procedure for intrabony defects slightly improved clinical and radiographic outcomes.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov identification number: NCT05456555.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients re-evaluated after non-surgical therapy were randomly assigned to the test (flapless with EMD) or control group (flapless alone). Clinical measurements were recorded pre-surgery and at 6 and 12 months after surgery, and radiographic measurements were taken pre-surgery and after 12 months.
RESULTS: Forty-six patients completed the study. Improvements were observed in both groups at 12 months for mean clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, with significant differences between test (3.9 ± 1.1 mm) and control groups (3.0 ± 1.2) (p = .017). Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (4.0 ± 0.7 vs. 3.3 ± 1.4 mm) was also near to statistical significance (p = .051). Also, more sites achieved successful composite outcome measure (final PPD ≤ 4 mm and CAL gain ≥3 mm) for the regenerative treatment in the flapless + EMD group (82.6% vs. 52.2%; p = .028). In terms of radiographic outcomes, EMD yielded a greater defect bone fill than flapless treatment alone (3.0 ± 1.0 mm vs. 1.8 ± 1.5 mm; p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: The additional application of EMD during the flapless procedure for intrabony defects slightly improved clinical and radiographic outcomes.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov identification number: NCT05456555.