Enamel matrix derivative versus bioactive ceramic filler in the treatment of intrabony defects: 12-month results.
BACKGROUND
This study examined the clinical efficacy of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and bioactive ceramic filler (BCF) in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects and evaluated factors influencing the treatment outcome.


METHODS
Thirteen chronic periodontitis patients, 41 to 74 years of age, who had two proximal intrabony defects in different jaw quadrants with > or =3 mm vertical radiographic bone loss were selected for this study. After initial therapy, the sites in each patient were randomly assigned to EMD or BCF treatment. Clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), tooth mobility (TM), gingival recession (GR), bleeding on probing, and dental plaque were recorded at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. At surgery, the intrabony component was characterized by recording the number of bony walls, distance in millimeters from the buccal crest (BC) to the most apical point of the defect, distance from the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) to the BC, and the mesio-distal width of the defect at the level of the bony crest.


RESULTS
BCF treatment resulted in a significant gain in proximal CAL (P = 0.005) and a reduction in proximal PD at 6 months (P <0.001), but there was no further improvement from 6 to 12 months. Paired comparisons by time for the EMD group revealed a significant reduction in proximal PD at 12 months (P = 0.001), whereas the gain in proximal CAL approached significance (P = 0.056). Mean GR increased significantly from baseline to 6 months in both groups (P = 0.001). Regression analysis revealed that within the EMD group, smoking and TM negatively influenced the gain of attachment, whereas within the BCF group, gingival recession increased with age, increasing CEJ to BC distance, and increasing mesial-distal width of the defect.


CONCLUSIONS
The gain in proximal attachment after treating intrabony defects by flap surgery with BCF was significant (P = 0.004) and twice that following treatment with EMD (P = 0.056). Patient and site variables affected the clinical outcome differently.
Leknes
Knut N
KN
Department of Clinical Dentistry - Periodontics, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. knut.leknes@odont.uib.no
Andersen
Kari-Mette
KM
Bøe
Olav E
OE
Skavland
Ragnfrid J
RJ
Albandar
Jasim M
JM
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D016301:Alveolar Bone Loss / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000601:surgery*; D001861:Bone Regeneration; D018786:Bone Substitutes; D002516:Ceramics; D055113:Chronic Periodontitis / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000601:surgery; D003746:Dental Enamel Proteins / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005260:Female; D005889:Gingival Recession / Q000628:therapy; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017622:Periodontal Attachment Loss / Q000628:therapy; D010514:Periodontal Pocket / Q000628:therapy; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012044:Regression Analysis
C022107:Bioglass; D018786:Bone Substitutes; D003746:Dental Enamel Proteins; C109069:enamel matrix proteins