A comparative study utilizing open flap debridement with and without enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects: a 12-month re-entry study.
BACKGROUND
Previous studies have demonstrated that enamel matrix derivative (EMD) has the ability to improve clinical parameters when used to treat intraosseous defects. The purpose of the present study was to compare at 12 months postsurgery sites treated with open flap debridement (OFD) alone to those treated with OFD and EMD.


METHODS
Twenty-three subjects with at least 2 intrabony defects were chosen. Fifty-three defects received EMD in conjunction with OFD. Thirty-one defects in these same 23 subjects were treated with OFD alone. Stents were fabricated to serve as fixed reference points. Re-entries were performed at least 1 year after initial surgery. Soft tissue measurements were recorded prior to initial surgery and prior to re-entry for gingival (GI) and plaque (PI) indices, probing depth (PD), gingival margin position, and clinical attachment level (CAL). Hard tissue measurements were recorded during the initial and re-entry surgery for level of crestal bone and depth of defect. Statistical analysis was conducted using the method of generalized estimating equations to determine changes in GI, PI, PD, CAL, fill of the osseous defect, and crestal resorption. Percent of defect fill was also calculated.


RESULTS
In all categories, treatment with EMD (test) was superior to treatment without EMD (control). Average PI and GI were not significantly different either initially or prior to re-entry. The average PD reduction was 2.7 mm greater with EMD than controls. The average CAL gains were 1.5 mm greater, and the average fill of osseous defect 2.4 mm greater with EMD than controls. The average percent of defect fill after adjusting for crestal bone loss was more than 3 times greater for EMD versus control-treated sites (74% defect fill with EMD versus 23% defect fill for control sites).


CONCLUSIONS
This study indicates that treatment of periodontal intraosseous defects with EMD is clinically superior to treatment without EMD (open flap debridement) in every parameter evaluated. Re-entry data demonstrate that percent fill of osseous defects treated with EMD compares favorably with the treatment results utilizing bone grafts or membrane barriers, according to published literature.
Froum
S J
SJ
Department of Implant Dentistry, New York University, College of Dentistry, NY, USA.
Weinberg
M A
MA
Rosenberg
E
E
Tarnow
D
D
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D016301:Alveolar Bone Loss / Q000601:surgery*; D000539:Alveolar Process / Q000473:pathology; D000543:Alveoloplasty; D001862:Bone Resorption / Q000145:classification; D018786:Bone Substitutes / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D016001:Confidence Intervals; D003646:Debridement; D003746:Dental Enamel Proteins / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D003774:Dental Plaque Index; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005889:Gingival Recession / Q000145:classification / Q000601:surgery; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D017622:Periodontal Attachment Loss / Q000145:classification / Q000601:surgery; D010512:Periodontal Index; D010514:Periodontal Pocket / Q000145:classification / Q000601:surgery; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D013223:Statistics as Topic; D015607:Stents; D013524:Surgical Flaps
D018786:Bone Substitutes; D003746:Dental Enamel Proteins; C109069:enamel matrix proteins