Loos B G, Louwerse P H G, Van Winkelhoff A J, Burger W, Gilijamse M, Hart A A M, van der Velden U
Departments of Periodontology and Dental Basic Sciences, Academic Medical Center (AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J Clin Periodontol. 2002 Oct;29(10):910-21. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2002.291006.x.
Current literature is ambivalent on the use of barrier membranes for regeneration of intraosseous defects. One of the reasons for unpredictable results may be related to infection before, during and after the surgical procedure. Therefore, the purpose of the present controlled study was to evaluate both the use of membranes (MEM) and antibiotics (AB), separately and in combination.
In all, 25 patients with two intraosseous periodontal defects each were randomized in two groups: AB+ group receiving systemic antibiotics (n = 13) and AB- group without antibiotics (n = 12). After raising flaps and after debridement, both defects in each patient were covered by a bioresorbable membrane (MEM+). However, just before suturing the flaps in a coronal position, the membrane over one of the two defects was removed at random (MEM-). This protocol resulted in four groups of defects: (i). MEM- AB-; (ii). MEM+ AB-; (iii). MEM- AB+; (iv). MEM+ AB+. Patients were monitored clinically and microbiologically for 1 year. Data were analyzed in repeated measures ancova's and adjusted means for clinical variables were obtained from the final statistical model.
Reduction in probing pocket depth (PPD) at 12 months postoperatively varied between 2.54 and 3.06 mm between the four treatment modalities, but overall no main effect of MEM or AB was found. Gains in probing attachment level (PAL) at 12 months postoperatively varied between 0.56 and 1.96 mm for the 4 treatments. In the overall analysis for PAL, no main effect of MEM or AB was found. Gains in probing bone level (PBL) 12 months postoperatively ranged from 1.39 to 2.09 mm between the treatment groups. Again, overall, no main effects of MEM or AB were found for PBL. Explorative statistical analyses indicated that smoking and not MEM or AB is a determining factor for gain in PBL (P = 0.0009). Nonsmokers were estimated to gain 2.04 mm PBL compared to 0.52 mm in smokers. The prevalence of several periodontal pathogens, at the day of surgery or postoperatively, and specific defect characteristics, were not determining factors for gain in PAL and PBL.
Neither the application of barrier membranes nor the use of systemic antibiotics showed an additional effect over control on both soft and hard tissue measurements in the treatment of intraosseous defects. In contrast, smoking was a determining factor severely limiting gain in PBL in surgical procedures aimed at regeneration of intraosseous defects.
目前的文献对于使用屏障膜来修复骨内缺损存在矛盾观点。手术结果不可预测的原因之一可能与手术前、手术中和手术后的感染有关。因此,本对照研究的目的是评估屏障膜(MEM)和抗生素(AB)单独使用及联合使用的效果。
总共25例患者,每人有两个骨内牙周缺损,被随机分为两组:AB+组接受全身抗生素治疗(n = 13),AB-组不使用抗生素(n = 12)。在翻开瓣和清创后,每位患者的两个缺损均用生物可吸收膜覆盖(MEM+)。然而,就在将瓣向冠方缝合之前,随机去除两个缺损之一上的膜(MEM-)。该方案产生了四组缺损:(i). MEM- AB-;(ii). MEM+ AB-;(iii). MEM- AB+;(iv). MEM+ AB+。对患者进行临床和微生物学监测1年。数据采用重复测量方差分析进行分析,并从最终统计模型中获得临床变量的调整均值。
术后12个月时,四种治疗方式之间探诊深度(PPD)的减少在2.54至3.06mm之间,但总体上未发现MEM或AB的主要效应。术后12个月时,四种治疗方式的探诊附着水平(PAL)增加在0.56至1.96mm之间。在PAL的总体分析中,未发现MEM或AB的主要效应。治疗组术后12个月时探诊骨水平(PBL)的增加在1.39至2.09mm之间。同样,总体上,对于PBL未发现MEM或AB的主要效应。探索性统计分析表明,吸烟而非MEM或AB是PBL增加的决定因素(P = 0.0009)。估计非吸烟者PBL增加2.04mm,而吸烟者为0.52mm。手术当天或术后几种牙周病原体的患病率以及特定的缺损特征,不是PAL和PBL增加的决定因素。
在骨内缺损的治疗中,屏障膜的应用和全身抗生素的使用在软组织和硬组织测量方面均未显示出比对照组有额外的效果。相反,吸烟是一个决定因素,在旨在修复骨内缺损的手术中严重限制了PBL的增加。