Mellado J R, Salkin L M, Freedman A L, Stein M D
Department of Periodontology, Temple University School of Dentistry, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
J Periodontol. 1995 Sep;66(9):751-5. doi: 10.1902/jop.1995.66.9.751.
A comparative study which evaluated two treatment modalities for regeneration of interproximal periodontal lesions was conducted. Eleven pairs of advanced periodontal lesions in 11 human subjects (6 male and 5 female) were treated in a split mouth design with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) interproximal membranes alone (control) in one lesion and ePTFE interproximal membranes in combination with decalcified freeze-dried bone (test) in the other lesion. At 1 year post-treatment, both treatment modalities revealed a significant increase in clinical attachment levels from baseline (2.0 +/- 1.37 mm test, 2.0 +/- 0.88 mm control) with no significant differences between the two modalities. When the amount of new bone formed in these lesions was assessed using re-entry procedures, a significant difference in new bone formation from baseline was found only for lesions treated with ePTFE alone (0.4 +/- 0.78 mm test, 1.3 +/- 0.96 mm control). It was concluded that at 1 year post-treatment, significant clinical attachment gains could be obtained by the use of ePTFE barriers with or without DFDBA. Statistically significant results in bone fill were only found when ePTFE barriers were used alone.
开展了一项比较研究,评估两种治疗方式对邻面牙周病变再生的效果。采用分口设计,对11名人类受试者(6名男性和5名女性)的11对晚期牙周病变进行治疗,一个病变仅使用膨体聚四氟乙烯(ePTFE)邻面屏障膜(对照组),另一个病变使用ePTFE邻面屏障膜联合脱钙冻干骨(试验组)。治疗后1年,两种治疗方式的临床附着水平均较基线有显著增加(试验组为2.0±1.37mm,对照组为2.0±0.88mm),两种方式之间无显著差异。当使用再入路程序评估这些病变中形成的新骨量时,仅发现单独使用ePTFE治疗的病变与基线相比新骨形成有显著差异(试验组为0.4±0.78mm,对照组为1.3±0.96mm)。得出的结论是,治疗后1年,使用含或不含DFDBA的ePTFE屏障均可显著增加临床附着。仅在单独使用ePTFE屏障时,骨填充的统计学显著结果才被发现。