Katuri Kishore Kumar, Kumar P Jaya, Swarna Chakrapani, Swamy D Narasimha, Arun Kurumathur V
Department of Periodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Takkellapadu, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2013 May;17(3):367-72. doi: 10.4103/0972-124X.115660.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of demineralized freeze dried bone allograft (DFDBA) and bioactive glass by clinically and radiographically in periodontal intrabony defects for a period of 12 months.
Ten systemically healthy patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis, with radiographic evidence of at least a pair of contralateral vertical osseous defects were included in this study. Defect on one-side is treated with DFDBA and the other side with bioactive glass. Clinical and radiographic measurements were made at baseline 6 month and 12 month after the surgery.
Compared to baseline, the 12 month results indicated that both treatment modalities resulted in significant changes in all clinical parameters (gingival index, probing depth, clinical attachment level (CAL) and radiographic parameters (bone fill); P < 0.001*). However, sites treated with DFDBA exhibited statistically significantly more changes compared to the bioactive glass in probing depth reduction (2.5 ± 0.1 mm vs. 1.8 ± 0.1 mm) CAL gain 2.4 ± 0.1 mm versus 1.7 ± 0.2 mm; (P < 0.001*). At 12 months, sites treated with bioactive glass exhibited 56.99% bone fill and 64.76% bone fill for DFDBA sites, which is statistically significant (P < 0.05*).
After 12 months, there was a significant difference between the two materials with sites grafted with DFDBA showing better reduction in probing pocket depth, gain in CAL and a greater percentage of bone fill when compared to that of bioactive glass.
本研究旨在通过临床和影像学方法,对脱矿冻干骨同种异体移植物(DFDBA)和生物活性玻璃在牙周骨内缺损治疗中的疗效进行为期12个月的评估。
本研究纳入了10名全身健康、诊断为慢性牙周炎且有影像学证据显示至少有一对对侧垂直骨缺损的患者。一侧缺损用DFDBA治疗,另一侧用生物活性玻璃治疗。在手术后基线、6个月和12个月时进行临床和影像学测量。
与基线相比,12个月的结果表明,两种治疗方式均使所有临床参数(牙龈指数、探诊深度、临床附着水平(CAL))和影像学参数(骨填充)发生了显著变化(P < 0.001*)。然而,与生物活性玻璃相比,接受DFDBA治疗的部位在探诊深度减少方面(2.5±0.1毫米对1.8±0.1毫米)、CAL增加方面(2.4±0.1毫米对1.7±0.2毫米)表现出统计学上更显著的变化(P < 0.001*)。在12个月时,接受生物活性玻璃治疗的部位骨填充率为56.99%,DFDBA治疗部位为64.76%,差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05*)。
12个月后,两种材料之间存在显著差异,与生物活性玻璃相比,移植DFDBA的部位在探诊袋深度减少、CAL增加和骨填充百分比方面表现更好。