Hoffmann Thomas, Al-Machot Elyan, Meyle Jörg, Jervøe-Storm Pia-Merete, Jepsen Søren
Department of Periodontology, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Department of Periodontology, University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Mar;20(2):357-64. doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1522-4. Epub 2015 Jul 15.
This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of a combination of enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) and a synthetic bone graft (biphasic calcium phosphate) with EMD alone in wide and deep one- and two-wall intrabony defects 36 months after treatment.
Thirty patients with chronic periodontitis and one wide (≥ 2 mm) and deep (≥ 4 mm) intrabony defect had been recruited in three centres in Germany. During surgery, defects were randomly assigned to EMD/synthetic bone graft (SBG) (test) or EMD (control). Assessments at baseline, after 6, 12 and 36 months, included bone sounding, relative clinical attachment levels, probing pocket depths and recessions.
After 36 months, defects in both groups were significantly improved (p < 0.001) with regard to defect fill, attachment gain and probing pocket reduction. In the EMD/SBG group, a mean defect fill of 2.6 mm (±1.7) was measured, and in the EMD group, the defect fill was 2.3 mm (±1.5). A mean gain in clinical attachment of 4.1 mm (±3.6) and 3.8 mm (±2.2) was observed in the test and in the control group, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters between the two treatment modalities.
The clinical improvements of advanced intrabony defects obtained with both regenerative modalities could be maintained over a period of 3 years. The combination of EMD with SBG did not show any advantage compared to the use of EMD alone.
本研究旨在比较釉基质衍生物(EMD)与合成骨移植材料(双相磷酸钙)联合使用和单独使用EMD治疗36个月后,在宽而深的单壁和双壁骨内缺损中的临床疗效。
在德国的三个中心招募了30例患有慢性牙周炎且有一个宽(≥2mm)而深(≥4mm)的骨内缺损的患者。手术过程中,缺损被随机分配至EMD/合成骨移植材料(SBG)组(试验组)或EMD组(对照组)。在基线、6个月、12个月和36个月时进行评估,包括骨探测、相对临床附着水平、探诊袋深度和牙龈退缩。
36个月后,两组缺损在缺损填充、附着获得和探诊袋减少方面均有显著改善(p<0.001)。在EMD/SBG组中,测得平均缺损填充为2.6mm(±1.7),而在EMD组中,缺损填充为2.3mm(±1.5)。试验组和对照组分别观察到平均临床附着增加4.1mm(±3.6)和3.8mm(±2.2)。两种治疗方式在任何研究参数上均无统计学显著差异。
两种再生治疗方式在晚期骨内缺损中取得的临床改善在3年期间均可维持。与单独使用EMD相比,EMD与SBG联合使用未显示出任何优势。