Sculean Anton, Barbé Giovanni, Chiantella Giovanni C, Arweiler Nicole B, Berakdar Mohammad, Brecx Michel
Department of Periodontology and Conservative Dentistry, University of Saarland, Homburg, Germany.
J Periodontol. 2002 Apr;73(4):401-8. doi: 10.1902/jop.2002.73.4.401.
The purpose of the present study was to compare the treatment of deep intrabony defects with a combination of an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) and a bioactive glass (BG) to BG alone.
Twenty-eight patients with chronic periodontitis, each of whom displayed 1 intrabony defect, were randomly treated with a combination of EMD and BG or with BG alone. Soft tissue measurements were made at baseline and at 1 year following therapy.
No differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at baseline between the 2 groups. Healing was uneventful in all patients. At 1 year after therapy, the sites treated with EMD and BG showed a reduction in mean probing depth (PD) from 8.07 +/- 1.14 mm to 3.92 +/- 0.73 mm and a change in mean clinical attachment level (CAL) from 9.64 +/- 1.59 mm to 6.42 +/- 1.08 mm (P < 0.0001). In the group treated with BG, the mean PD was reduced from 8.07 +/- 1.32 mm to 3.85 +/- 0.66 mm and the mean CAL changed from 9.78 +/- 1.71 mm to 6.71 +/- 1.89 mm (P < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed between the test and control group.
Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that both therapies led to significant improvements of the investigated clinical parameters, and the combination of enamel matrix derivative and bioactive glass does not seem to additionally improve the clinical outcome of the therapy.
本研究的目的是比较釉基质蛋白衍生物(EMD)与生物活性玻璃(BG)联合应用与单独使用BG治疗深部骨内缺损的效果。
28例慢性牙周炎患者,每人有1个骨内缺损,随机接受EMD与BG联合治疗或单独使用BG治疗。在基线和治疗后1年进行软组织测量。
两组在基线时任何研究参数均无差异。所有患者愈合顺利。治疗后1年,接受EMD与BG治疗的部位平均探诊深度(PD)从8.07±1.14mm降至3.92±0.73mm,平均临床附着水平(CAL)从9.64±1.59mm变为6.42±1.08mm(P<0.0001)。在接受BG治疗的组中,平均PD从8.07±1.32mm降至3.85±0.66mm,平均CAL从9.78±1.71mm变为6.71±1.89mm(P<0.0001)。试验组和对照组在任何研究参数上均未观察到统计学上的显著差异。
在本研究的范围内,可以得出结论,两种治疗方法均使所研究的临床参数有显著改善,釉基质衍生物与生物活性玻璃联合应用似乎并未额外改善治疗的临床效果。