Gore-tex(®) versus resolut adapt(®) GTR membranes with perioglas(®) in periodontal regeneration.

BACKGROUND

Successful reconstruction of periodontal tissues destroyed due to periodontitis has been an evasive goal for the periodontists. Several GTR materials and bone grafts have been tried with varied success rates.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of non-resorbable (GoreTex(®)) and bioabsorbable (Resolut Adapt(®)) membranes in combination with bioactive glass (PerioGlas(®)) in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten chronic periodontitis patients having bilateral matched intrabony defects were treated with non-resorbable membrane (GoreTex(®)) and bioactive glass or the bioresorbable membrane (Resolut Adapt(®)) and bioactive glass in split mouth design. Clinical parameters like plaque index, gingival index, probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level, and gingival recession were recorded at baseline and 9 months post-operatively. Similarly, radiographic (linear CADIA) and intra-surgical (re-entry) measurements were evaluated at baseline and 9 months post-operatively).

RESULTS

Both the membrane groups showed clinically and statistically significant improvement in clinical parameters i.e., reduction in probing depth (4.6 ± 1.4 mm) vs. 3.7 ± 1.3 mm) and gain in clinical attachment level (4.6 + 1.6 vs. 3.2 ± 1.5 mm) for non-resorbable and bioresorbable membrane groups, respectively. Similar trend was observed when radiographical and intra-surgical (re-entry) measurements were evaluated and compared, pre- and post-operatively at 9 months. However, on comparison between the two groups, the difference was statistically not significant.

CONCLUSION

Both the barrier membranes i.e., non-resorbable (Gore-Tex(®)) and bioabsorbable (Resolut Adapt(®)) membranes in combination with bioactive glass (PerioGlas(®)) were equally effective in enhancing the periodontal regeneration.