Cortellini P, Pini Prato G, Tonetti M S
Department of Periodontics, University of Siena, Italy.
J Periodontol. 1996 Mar;67(3):217-23. doi: 10.1902/jop.1996.67.3.217.
The purpose of this controlled clinical trial was to compare the clinical efficacy of 3 treatment modalities in the treatment of deep interproximal intrabony defects. Thirty-six (36) defects in 36 patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups by blocking to prognostic variables. The test was treated with bioresorbable membranes positioned coronal to the interproximal bone crest; the second group (membrane control) was treated with conventional non-resorbable (ePTFE) barrier membranes applied coronal to the alveolar crest; the third group (flap Control) was treated with an access flap procedure (MWF). No differences were observed in terms of baseline oral hygiene and defect characteristics among the 3 groups, indicating that the blocking approach was effective. A stringent infection control program was enforced for 1 year. The results indicated that: 1) at 1 year all treatment modalities resulted in clinically significant improvements in clinical attachment levels (CAL) and reductions in probing depths; 2) a statistically significant treatment effect (P < 0.0001, ANOVA) was observed comparing the test (4.6 +/- 1.2 mm), the membrane control (5.2 +/- 1.4 mm), and the flap control groups (2.3 +/- 0.8 mm) in terms of CAL gain; 3) differences in terms of CAL gain between the test (bioresorbable) and the membrane control (ePTFE) groups were not statistically significant (P = 0.19, t-test); 4) both the test and the membrane control groups gained significantly more CAL at 1 year than the MWF group (P < 0.0001, t-test). CAL gains > or = 4 mm were observed in 83.3% of cases in both GTR groups, while CAL gains of this magnitude were not detected in the MWF group. We concluded that clinically significant CAL gains can be obtained with GTR procedures using both bioresorbable and non-resorbable membranes. Patients' morbidity, however, was lower in the group treated with bioresorbable membranes.
这项对照临床试验的目的是比较三种治疗方式在治疗邻面深部骨内缺损方面的临床疗效。36例患者的36处缺损通过对预后变量进行区组化随机分配至三个治疗组中的一组。试验组采用放置于邻面牙槽嵴冠方的可吸收膜进行治疗;第二组(膜对照组)采用放置于牙槽嵴冠方的传统不可吸收(ePTFE)屏障膜进行治疗;第三组(翻瓣对照组)采用翻瓣手术(MWF)进行治疗。三组在基线口腔卫生和缺损特征方面未观察到差异,表明区组化方法有效。严格的感染控制方案实施了1年。结果表明:1)在1年时,所有治疗方式均使临床附着水平(CAL)有临床显著改善且探诊深度降低;2)在CAL增加方面,比较试验组(4.6±1.2mm)、膜对照组(5.2±1.4mm)和翻瓣对照组(2.3±0.8mm),观察到有统计学显著的治疗效果(P<0.0001,方差分析);3)试验组(可吸收)和膜对照组(ePTFE)在CAL增加方面的差异无统计学意义(P = 0.19,t检验);4)试验组和膜对照组在1年时获得的CAL均显著多于MWF组(P<0.0001,t检验)。在两个引导组织再生(GTR)组中,83.3%的病例CAL增加≥4mm,而MWF组未检测到如此程度的CAL增加。我们得出结论,使用可吸收和不可吸收膜的GTR手术均可获得临床显著的CAL增加。然而,使用可吸收膜治疗的组患者发病率较低。