Zybutz M D, Laurell L, Rapoport D A, Persson G R
Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle 98195, USA.
J Clin Periodontol. 2000 Mar;27(3):169-78. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027003169.x.
Different types of barriers are used in guided tissue regenerative procedures.
This prospective study compared resorbable citric acid ester softened polylactic acid membranes (RM) and non-resorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) barriers (NRM) in GTR treatment of intrabony defects.
29 subjects were randomly assigned to the RM group or NRM group. Each patient received one GTR procedure. An open flap debridement (FD) was performed at another site 2 weeks later to evaluate healing potential. Clinical treatment outcomes were finally evaluated 12 months after surgery for changes of pocket depth PD, probing attachment level PAL, and probing bone level PBL, and radiographically for bone change using standardised radiographs.
No differences in healing patters after surgery were found between patients in the 2 study groups as evaluated from the FD surgical procedures. NRM treated sites showed less signs of post-surgical inflammation during the 1st 4 weeks of healing than did RM treated sites (p<0.05). GTR-treated defects in the RM group, initially 7.0+/-2.2 mm deep, showed PD reduction of 3.3+/-2.2 mm, PAL gain of 2.4+/-1.8 mm, PBL gain of 2.4+/-3.7 mm (28%) and a radiographic bone fill of 2.3+/-2.4 mm. Defects treated with the NRM exhibited PD reduction of 3.1+/-2.1 mm, PAL gain of 2.4+/-0.8 mm, PBL gain of 2.2+/-1.7 mm (25%) and a radiographic bone fill of 3.3+/-2.2 mm. All improvements were statistically significant (p<0.01) but there was no difference between RM and NRM treatments for any of the efficacy variables. The results of this study indicated that there was no clinically significant difference in treatment outcomes following GTR treatment of intrabony defects with citric acid ester softened polylactic acid membranes as compared to ePTFE barriers. The overall mean inter-proximal vertical bone defect fill at 12 months as assessed from intra-oral radiographs was 44% of the original mean defect depth.
Thus, no clinically significant difference in treatment outcomes was observed following GTR treatment of intrabony defects with citric acid ester softened polylactic acid membranes or ePTFE barriers.
引导组织再生手术中使用了不同类型的屏障。
这项前瞻性研究比较了可吸收的柠檬酸酯软化聚乳酸膜(RM)和不可吸收的膨体聚四氟乙烯(ePTFE)屏障(NRM)在引导组织再生治疗骨内缺损中的效果。
29名受试者被随机分配到RM组或NRM组。每位患者接受一次引导组织再生手术。两周后在另一部位进行开放性皮瓣清创术(FD)以评估愈合潜力。术后12个月最终评估临床治疗结果,包括牙周袋深度(PD)、探诊附着水平(PAL)和探诊骨水平(PBL)的变化,并使用标准化X线片进行影像学评估骨变化。
从FD手术操作评估,两个研究组患者术后的愈合模式没有差异。在愈合的前4周,NRM治疗部位的术后炎症迹象比RM治疗部位少(p<0.05)。RM组经引导组织再生治疗的缺损最初深度为7.0±2.2mm,PD减少3.3±2.2mm,PAL增加2.4±1.8mm,PBL增加2.4±3.7mm(28%),影像学骨填充为2.3±2.4mm。用NRM治疗的缺损PD减少3.1±2.1mm,PAL增加2.4±0.8mm,PBL增加2.2±1.7mm(25%),影像学骨填充为3.3±2.2mm。所有改善均具有统计学意义(p<0.01),但RM和NRM治疗在任何疗效变量上均无差异。本研究结果表明,与ePTFE屏障相比,用柠檬酸酯软化聚乳酸膜进行引导组织再生治疗骨内缺损后的治疗结果在临床上无显著差异。从口腔内X线片评估,12个月时近端垂直骨缺损的总体平均填充量为原始平均缺损深度的44%。
因此,在用柠檬酸酯软化聚乳酸膜或ePTFE屏障进行引导组织再生治疗骨内缺损后,未观察到治疗结果在临床上有显著差异。